- Joined
- Jan 1, 2025
- Messages
- 56
- Thread Author
- #1
Case Filing
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION
EpicFought (Represented by Dragon Law Firm.)
Plaintiff
v.
The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
The plaintiff was unjustly terminated from their position of a prosecutor by the Department of Justice due to an alleged violation of the code of conduct and alleged incompetence. After an argument between someone and the plaintiff over law where the plaintiff argued they knew the law because they were employed in the DOJ, the DOJ contacted the plaintiff and terminated the employment of the Plaintiff over this argument and supposed breach of the code of conduct. This minor and reasonable statement—intended to clarify the Plaintiff's legal expertise—was twisted into accusations that the Plaintiff had "mocked" the individual and leveraged their position improperly. The Plaintiff asserts that the termination was unjust, as the claims of breaching the contract were either exaggerated or baseless. The Plaintiff did not engage in any actions that would warrant such severe punishment, especially without prior notice or a chance to remedy any of the issues.
I. PARTIES
1. EpicFought (Plaintiff)
2. Department of Justice. (Defendant)
3. Mask3D_WOLF
4. Freeze_Line
II. FACTS
1. On Dec 16th 2024, RealTV filed a lawsuit against the staff team in the supreme court. In good faith, Epic contacted RealTV to explain that the staff were allowed to close his case. They then had an argument about who was correct and Epic informed RealTV that they were part of the DOJ so they ought to have knowledge of the law.
2. Mask3D_Wolf then contacted the plaintiff and claimed their behaviour was “unbecoming of a prosecutor.” Mask argued to Epic that Epic used his position as a prosecutor to mock RealTV, which is false.
3. Mask and other DOJ members then began arguing that Epic was an inexperienced worker who had used AI to conduct all his work which violates the DOJ code of conduct, which is false.
4. Mask then conducted a 3 DOJ member vote and voted to terminate Epic, Epic was then terminated.
5. Other employees of the DOJ have clearly violated the DOJ’s code of conduct, while they are allowed to retain employment.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Unfair Dismissal: The Plaintiff’s termination violates Section 13(1) of the Commercial Standards Act, which sets out that unfair dismissal is “the unjust termination of an employee.” According to Oxford, unjust means “not deserved or fair.” The termination in this case is clearly not deserved or fair, as it was based on unfounded claims of incompetence and AI usage. These accusations were not backed by concrete facts, making the dismissal unfair. A simple argument between people external to the job should not warrant as extreme a punishment of termination.
2. The Plaintiff argues that the precedent set in previous unfair dismissal cases, such as Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96, which asserts that only a reason for termination needs to be provided to make a dismissal fair, is unjust. The law as set out in the Commercial Standards Act defines unfair dismissal as any termination that is “unjust,” not just those situations where the vacancy is immediately filled without explanation as shown in the precedent of the aforementioned case. 13(1) of the Act says that unfair dismissal is: “Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled)”, The inclusion of the term "e.g." in the law shows that the example given is just that, an example and is not an exhaustive list, and other situations, such as baseless accusations or extreme responses to minor incidents as in this case, can also fall under unjust dismissal. The Plaintiff asserts that the current precedent unjustly limits the definition of unfair dismissal and that this should be examined by the court to allow for a more fair and just interpretation.
IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:
- The Plaintiff seeks $10,000 as compensation for emotional damage. As a result of their unfair termination, the Plaintiff has suffered stress and immense sadness.
- The Plaintiff seeks $15,000 for loss of enjoyment. The Plaintiff has lost their ability to enjoy living in Redmont due to the unjust and unfair treatment they have faced by the DOJ.
- The Plaintiff seeks $7,500 in legal fees to cover the costs associated with pursuing this legal action.
By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.
DATED: This 27th day of February 2025