I assert that it would be erroneous to call this a firing, precisely because a the primary reason people use the word, "fired," is because it implies 3 things:

I assert that it would be erroneous to call this a firing, precisely because a the primary reason people use the word, "fired," is because it implies 3 things: 1. Something I did was bad enough that I don't work there anymore 2. I didn't have time or space to plan for this 3. I feel injured and sad that this occurred Anytime you don't satisfy those criteria, the situation isn't really what people think of as a 'firing,' - even a well-handled 'firing' implies extreme discomfort and bad feelings between the associated parties- it doesn't make sense to use the word if the situation doesn't correspond to the primary differentiating characteristics of that word vs. other similar words! For example, 'laid-off' strongly implies that it wasn't really anything you did, though it does imply that you weren't the precious, necessary performer on the team. "Laid-off" is fairly neutral- you might return to work for that company again, etc. "Fired" strongly implies a much different situation. I mean, if we want to work on redefining the words, so that a situation like this can be called a "well-handled firing," that's all fine (though I might assert that it's wasted effort), but as it stands, I think that you'd have to spend so much time and so many words explaining how this firing was different from all the other firings people are used to seeing, that not calling it a "firing" at all makes the most sense. Have a splendid day, quanticle! :)