4 ms·

To the people who say he resigned and was not fired: there is such a thing as "constructive dismissal", which basically means "forced to resign".

dragonwriter 13y ago
Yes, and no one with any basis for knowledge has suggested that the fact pattern which supports constructive dismissal existed. If you have actual facts supporting a claim that Eich's resignation was an instance of constructive dismissal, rather than pure speculation, go ahead and present them.
ceejayoz 13y ago
Wiki says California's definition of that is: > "In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign." I'd imagine that's somewhat hard to argue as the CEO.
- 001sky 13y ago
  Van Vleck Turner & Zaller LLP specializes in all aspects of California labor and employment law. It would be surpising for a law firm to publish something blatantly obtuse on the subject. More likely, the departure was negotiated with a non-disparagement clause and a payout. A legal action by the disgruntled employee would be terminal for mozilla's mission and brand. The could not risk a trial--it would be worse publicity--so they would settle. But this should have been anticipated and already settled, however. This is why HR people are employed and why executive failures are typically quiet. On the merits, there is public evidence that The Mozilla Foundation chief executive was publicly hostile to the departed executive of MoCo.Due to the corporate structure of mozilla, the Foundation executive can be hostile to MoCo ceo without being in a position of legal unsubordination.[+] Which basically render's your point moot. _________ [+] The foundation is the 100% owner (and thus in a Parent-child relation) of MoCo.
walshemj 13y ago
The board could just say "total breakdown in trust between employer and employee" or "bringing the company into disrepute" as grounds for dismissal. And constructive dismissal is a really hard thing to prove and you have to sue for breach of contract.
- Pinatubo 13y ago
  > The board could just say "total breakdown in trust between employer and employee" or "bringing the company into disrepute" as grounds for dismissal. The courts usually see through obvious window-dressing like that.
  - walshemj 13y ago
    Er actually I do know quite a bit about how employment law works and both of those grounds I mentioned are can be valid reasons to dismiss fairly. And that is not considering the fact that CA is an "at will" state
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 13y ago

Yes, and no one with any basis for knowledge has suggested that the fact pattern which supports constructive dismissal existed. If you have actual facts supporting a claim that Eich's resignation was an instance of constructive dismissal, rather than pure speculation, go ahead and present them.

ceejayoz 13y ago

Wiki says California's definition of that is: > "In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign." I'd imagine that's somewhat hard to argue as the CEO.

001sky 13y ago
Van Vleck Turner & Zaller LLP specializes in all aspects of California labor and employment law. It would be surpising for a law firm to publish something blatantly obtuse on the subject. More likely, the departure was negotiated with a non-disparagement clause and a payout. A legal action by the disgruntled employee would be terminal for mozilla's mission and brand. The could not risk a trial--it would be worse publicity--so they would settle. But this should have been anticipated and already settled, however. This is why HR people are employed and why executive failures are typically quiet. On the merits, there is public evidence that The Mozilla Foundation chief executive was publicly hostile to the departed executive of MoCo.Due to the corporate structure of mozilla, the Foundation executive can be hostile to MoCo ceo without being in a position of legal unsubordination.[+] Which basically render's your point moot. _________ [+] The foundation is the 100% owner (and thus in a Parent-child relation) of MoCo.

walshemj 13y ago

The board could just say "total breakdown in trust between employer and employee" or "bringing the company into disrepute" as grounds for dismissal. And constructive dismissal is a really hard thing to prove and you have to sue for breach of contract.

Pinatubo 13y ago
> The board could just say "total breakdown in trust between employer and employee" or "bringing the company into disrepute" as grounds for dismissal. The courts usually see through obvious window-dressing like that.
- walshemj 13y ago
  Er actually I do know quite a bit about how employment law works and both of those grounds I mentioned are can be valid reasons to dismiss fairly. And that is not considering the fact that CA is an "at will" state

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]