Companies don't want the case to go to court at all. Even if it wins, it looks bad and a lot of embarrassing stuff is discovered. So much of the process is also

Companies don't want the case to go to court at all. Even if it wins, it looks bad and a lot of embarrassing stuff is discovered. So much of the process is also around making the employee perceive that there is no recourse, or that a case should not be pursued. For example, most of the time, a person will pursue a case if he or she perceives moral superiority over the other party. So the employer's goal is to equalize that difference, either by bringing itself up or by bringing the employee down. Severance payments are there to make the employee feel good about the company. It didn't work out, but the company was fair and everyone can move on to a better arrangement. This is a decent way of doing because, after all, most people don't want to sue ex-employers. They want to move on with their careers. A PIP's purpose is to make the employee feel bad about himself. PIPs actually make it easier for employees to sue, but are justified on the basis that they will be less likely to do so if they think they have less recourse. I have no idea how this works out empirically.