Sued after firing poorly performing employee

Average Ridiculous Rating
1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)

I hired a woman on a salary plus commission basis. The woman seemed to be a great fit initially, but things quickly changed. She had poor performance, did not adhere to the rules of the company, and on more than one occasion, she did not show up to work at all. Her employment was terminated in May of that same year.

I received summons describing the suit that she was filing against me less than a week after her termination. I later found that she had retained representation within the first month of employment. In addition, my company was not the only company her family was suing at the time.

I got to the point where I had paid around 10k, and I couldn’t go on. I was working day and night and couldn’t keep up with my bills. I had accepted that my company had failed and that I was ready to quit.

But the trial lasted for three days and I won. No monies were ever collected from the plaintiff, so I ask what exactly did I win? I am in debt, and she has no idea how much pain her little lie has caused me. In fact, I am quite sure she has moved on to her next frivolous lawsuit.


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

  • It seems to me that when a plaintiff files a frivolus suite and looses, the defendent should automatically have the right to sue and recover court costs and financial damages. This is especially true for plantiffs like the one in this case.

  • I agree except that usually they don’t have anything to recover! Then you are out the additional costs of lawyers & court. You can’t win against idiots in this tort society. There really ought to be something that happens to those like this person. Espically if you can show the family is all doing it…that’s a scam. So sorry for your pain.

  • It’s worthy of note that the greatest financial contributions to the Democrats after the unions come from the trial lawyers. That’s why our bizarre contingency system goes on, as an incentive for this kind of lawsuit. In Europe the loser pays the winner’s legal fees, and often a judge decides the case instead of a no-nothing jury only too eager to give away someone else’s money. But the lawyers know what they’re doing; in politics, money talks.

  • My boss is being sued by a guy who falsely filed a worker’s comp claim – he lost in court. Now he is suing for a list of complaints, including discrimination. He also accuses the Judges of misconduct and the attorneys of same and more.

    The kicker is that he has been delcared a “Vixatious Litigant” in California. AND, he is acting as his own attorney files all his suits as Pro Se Plaintiff – He doesn’t even have to pay court fees, etc. It has cost my boss thousands, but now he is on a mission to get all his civil suits thrown out!

    This guy is just waiting for someone to pay him off. So he just keeps on filing civil suits.

    Thanks to liberal judges, he keeps getting away with it.

    Shame on them! It costs us in the long run.

  • We need a “loser pays” system like that of the UK. It would make people think twice before trying “jackpot justice” again.

  • I have had a similar experience to this. i will post it so all can read. I’m sorry for your circumstance. I truly believe lawyers are the problem. The justice system is not (justice). It has become a means of legally extorting money from companies.

  • I think the answer is a simple one. Anytime a lawsuit is filed and the defendant is found not liable, then the charges incurred by the defendant should be paid in full by the plaintiff. This includes lost time at work, gas, and damages for the mental strain imposed on the defendant.

  • While “loser pays” is a good first step, a few things needed to be added, due to the fact that many of the plaintiffs don’t have anything to go after.

    1. If the lawyer is performing on a contingency basis, the lawyer, and their firm, needs to be held equally liable for damages to the defendant.

    2. If the plaintiff is found liable for the defendant’s costs, the plaintiff is summarily barred from filing against the defendant, or any agent thereof, until every single penny, including interest, has been paid.

    Two small changes would change the face of lawsuit abuse in this country.

  • Kirk, then when a plaintiff wins a case where there is a contingency fee agreement should the defendant also pay all of the plaintiff’s expenses they incurred prosecuting the case?

  • Daniel,
    The solution to that is to ban contingency fee lawsuits. You are a personal injury lawyer. You’re not used to seeing a courtroom – only a conference room where settlements are negioated. Ban contingency fee cases (along with Kirk’s suggestions) and the system is greatly improved. Of course, you won’t go along with that because personal injury lawyers are more interested in the income than service a system of justice. (in my humble opinion…)

Vlog Playlists

Meks Ads

Meks Ads Small

Meks Flickr

  • la maison de l'orange amère
  • bougainvilliers
  • la colère de l'eau
  • Aïn
  • bab volet
  • setu
  • setu & seti
  • kabou
  • visu

Meks Social

Collaboratively harness market-driven processes whereas resource-leveling internal or "organic" sources. Competently formulate.

Meks ThemeForest

Get in touch

Let us know what you think?
Visit our other pages for great content!