Lawsuit: Adjourned Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96

[ko531]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF DEMOCRACYCRAFT
CIVIL ACTION

Ko531
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth of Redmont
Defendant

COMPLAINT
I was unjustly Fired as Inspections Manager of the DCT and as Building Inspector of the DCT. I was informed on May 8th that I was fired from the DCT for not doing various things in my role as Inspection Manager. This was not specific and no example of these "various things" were not provided. This also does not give excuse to fire me as a Building Inspector as this only talks about my role as Inspection Manager. All Previous Conversation before my dismissal came with praise about my work and what I was doing inside the department. Never once was I let know that I had started to underperform and even up to a couple days before my dismissal I was still receiving praise. I can not fix my performance in the department if I am constantly being told that I am doing a great job.


I. PARTIES
1. Ko531
2. The Commonwealth of Redmont

II. FACTS
1. Around May 6th I had my last conversation with my former employer Vroomba in which I received praise.
2. On May 8th, after almost 9 months as Inspections Manager, I was fired for not doing various things in my role as Inspections manager but never told what those various things are.
3. I was never given a reason why I was fired as Building Inspector.
4. Unlike my firing the previous 3 inspections managers (Galavance, Sergecool and SimplyHarci) all got to continue in the department in smaller roles as BIs and Constructors while I was never afforded that chance.
5. The_Superior10 was hired as Inspections Manager 17 minutes after I was fired
6. I tried doing a Freedom of Information request for the last conversation between me and my previous employer Vroomba before my firing but the DOJ said it was "Classified"

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. Unfair Dismissal
2. Loss of Enjoyment

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Be Re-instated as Inspections Manager and Building Inspector

Or

2. $50,000 for Loss of Enjoyment as I have been inside the DCT for over a year and Inspections Manager for over 2/3 a year.

V. EVIDENCE

Spoiler: P-1

Spoiler: P-2

Spoiler: P-3

Spoiler: P-4

Spoiler: P-5

Spoiler: P-6

 

[End]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

A representative of the Commonwealth is required to appear before the Federal Court in the case of Ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont.

Failure to appear within 72 hours of this summons will result in a default judgement based on the known facts of the case.

Both parties should make themselves aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[ko531]

MOTION TO RECUSE

As DCT Deputy Secretary you can see or have seen previous conversations between myself and vroomba in classified channels which may act towards prejudice before even starting this case. I also worked under you when you were acting secretary and I was still Inspections Manager. You still work closely with previous DCT Sec Vroomba I presume which also could lead to predjudice and bias.

It is hard to believe that someone who has been in the DCT for so long and is in a managerment position for so long does not have opinions on what happens inside the department including dismissals and whether they were unfair.

For your close ties to the DCT and your ability to see the inner workings of the DCT possibly already giving you opinions and biases I must as you to Recuse.

 

[End]

I’ll accept this motion to recuse and we will assign a different presiding officer.

 

[SumoMC]

With the Recusal of Justice End, i will be taking over this case. All deadlines remain in effect.

 

[ko531]

Your Honor, The Commonwealth has failed to appear and I wish to motion for summary judgement

Before summary judgement however I would still like to make a small arguement for my case to better explain the evidence and facts provided in my filing of this lawsuit

 

[SumoMC]

@MrFluffy2U94 is hereby held in Contempt of Court, we no go into recess pending verdict.

 

[SumoMC]

Your Honor, The Commonwealth has failed to appear and I wish to motion for summary judgement

Before summary judgement however I would still like to make a small arguement for my case to better explain the evidence and facts provided in my filing of this lawsuit

Denied

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

@MrFluffy2U94 is hereby held in Contempt of Court, we no go into recess pending verdict.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

I do apologize for the delay. Being that this is my first ever contempt of court charge, I do ask for a bit of grace? I will post our response immediately following this post.

I was only pinged once in the summons for this case, in discord and I do believe that the Judicial policies state that there must be two means of summons? I am requesting that since there seems to have been a bit of a “curfuffle” here from both sides that we may have a little grace? It would seem like an incredible injustice after all this case has been through to end in this manner when the state is willing and able to try this case in its entirety.

Furthermore, if this motion is denied, I ask that the contempt charges be brought upon my Lead Prosecutor (NachoLebraa) who volunteered to take this case and was assigned to it, failed to respond as exemplified below.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

[MrFluffy2U94]

Opening Statement

Your Honor,

In this case, the plaintiff has presented a narrative suggesting that their dismissal was unfair, primarily due to a lack of communication and vague reasoning. However, the facts paint a different picture. The plaintiff claims that they were dismissed without a clear explanation and were only told, "you weren't doing what was asked." Yet, the evidence will show that this statement is not as vague as the plaintiff suggests. It directly addresses their failure to meet job expectations.

Furthermore, the plaintiff references past conversations with their former boss, Vroomba, indicating high praise. We do not dispute that the plaintiff received praise for their work at times. However, performance can vary over time, and occasional praise does not negate ongoing performance issues. The plaintiff served under five different Secretaries within nine months, a fact that in itself suggests instability and potential difficulties in maintaining consistent performance standards.

The claim that the plaintiff was doing too much and then suddenly too little is also misleading. Changes in workload and performance expectations are common in dynamic work environments. Adjustments in workload by Vroomba were an attempt to optimize departmental efficiency, not an indication of the plaintiff's success or failure.

The plaintiff also asserts that their dismissal was harsher than that of their predecessors, who were reassigned within the department. However, the specifics of each case are unique, and the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was based on their individual performance and conduct.

The plaintiff has suggested that their right to fair treatment was violated, implying a lack of due process in their dismissal. It is essential to understand that the Commonwealth of Redmont operates under clear employment laws that protect both employees and employers. According to the Constitution, a Secretary has the right to terminate employment based on poor job performance.

The law (Commercial Standards Act) does not mandate that every instance of underperformance must be preceded by a formal warning, especially in cases where the overall pattern of performance is unsatisfactory. While open communication is encouraged, it is not legally required to provide multiple warnings if the employer determines that the employee's performance is detrimental to the department’s function.

In this case, the decision to dismiss the plaintiff was made following a comprehensive evaluation of their performance. The action was executed by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation and notice was provided.

During this trial, we will present to you clear evidence and witness testimony that demonstrate the actions taken by the Commonwealth of Redmont were both justified and necessary. We will show performance records indicating the plaintiff's failure to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. Witnesses, including former colleagues and Secretaries, will testify about the plaintiff's inconsistent performance and the impact it had on the department. We will further provide reason and rational behind the termination.

In conclusion, we ask you to consider the evidence impartially and recognize that the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment was made in the best interest of the department and in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont. We are confident that you will see the rationale behind this necessary decision and understand that it was neither unjust nor unfounded.

 

[ko531]

Opening Statement

Your Honor,

In this case, the plaintiff has presented a narrative suggesting that their dismissal was unfair, primarily due to a lack of communication and vague reasoning. However, the facts paint a different picture. The plaintiff claims that they were dismissed without a clear explanation and were only told, "you weren't doing what was asked." Yet, the evidence will show that this statement is not as vague as the plaintiff suggests. It directly addresses their failure to meet job expectations.

Furthermore, the plaintiff references past conversations with their former boss, Vroomba, indicating high praise. We do not dispute that the plaintiff received praise for their work at times. However, performance can vary over time, and occasional praise does not negate ongoing performance issues. The plaintiff served under five different Secretaries within nine months, a fact that in itself suggests instability and potential difficulties in maintaining consistent performance standards.

The claim that the plaintiff was doing too much and then suddenly too little is also misleading. Changes in workload and performance expectations are common in dynamic work environments. Adjustments in workload by Vroomba were an attempt to optimize departmental efficiency, not an indication of the plaintiff's success or failure.

The plaintiff also asserts that their dismissal was harsher than that of their predecessors, who were reassigned within the department. However, the specifics of each case are unique, and the decision to terminate the plaintiff's employment was based on their individual performance and conduct.

The plaintiff has suggested that their right to fair treatment was violated, implying a lack of due process in their dismissal. It is essential to understand that the Commonwealth of Redmont operates under clear employment laws that protect both employees and employers. According to the Constitution, a Secretary has the right to terminate employment based on poor job performance.

The law (Commercial Standards Act) does not mandate that every instance of underperformance must be preceded by a formal warning, especially in cases where the overall pattern of performance is unsatisfactory. While open communication is encouraged, it is not legally required to provide multiple warnings if the employer determines that the employee's performance is detrimental to the department’s function.

In this case, the decision to dismiss the plaintiff was made following a comprehensive evaluation of their performance. The action was executed by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation and notice was provided.

During this trial, we will present to you clear evidence and witness testimony that demonstrate the actions taken by the Commonwealth of Redmont were both justified and necessary. We will show performance records indicating the plaintiff's failure to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. Witnesses, including former colleagues and Secretaries, will testify about the plaintiff's inconsistent performance and the impact it had on the department. We will further provide reason and rational behind the termination.

In conclusion, we ask you to consider the evidence impartially and recognize that the decision to terminate the plaintiff’s employment was made in the best interest of the department and in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Redmont. We are confident that you will see the rationale behind this necessary decision and understand that it was neither unjust nor unfounded.

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, The commonwealth have to file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss. We still have Discovery and My Opening Statements to get through before the commonwealth can provide their opening statement.

Since the commonwealth is late to appearing and they cant seem to realized at what point of the trial we are at I ask that this be struck along with us continuing to Summary Judgement

 

[SumoMC]

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

Your Honor,

I do apologize for the delay. Being that this is my first ever contempt of court charge, I do ask for a bit of grace? I will post our response immediately following this post.

I was only pinged once in the summons for this case, in discord and I do believe that the Judicial policies state that there must be two means of summons? I am requesting that since there seems to have been a bit of a “curfuffle” here from both sides that we may have a little grace? It would seem like an incredible injustice after all this case has been through to end in this manner when the state is willing and able to try this case in its entirety.

Furthermore, if this motion is denied, I ask that the contempt charges be brought upon my Lead Prosecutor (NachoLebraa) who volunteered to take this case and was assigned to it, failed to respond as exemplified below.

View attachment 44712


Thank you for your consideration.

This motion is Denied. The Commonwealth had more than enough time to present themselves to this court, and request an extension if needed. It is your job to ensure that your departmental employees are prompt, throwing them under the bus in an effort to save face is not a valid reason for your failure to meet a deadline.

Opening statement is hereby struck from the record as the court is in recess. You are hereby held in contempt for speaking out of turn. I hereby order the DHS to fine/jail accordingly.

 

[SumoMC]

OBJECTION BREACH OF PROCEDURE

Your Honor, The commonwealth have to file a response to the complaint or a motion to dismiss. We still have Discovery and My Opening Statements to get through before the commonwealth can provide their opening statement.

Since the commonwealth is late to appearing and they cant seem to realized at what point of the trial we are at I ask that this be struck along with us continuing to Summary Judgement

Sustained

 

[SumoMC]

Verdict

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
ko531 v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2024] FCR 96

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Plaintiff claims that they were unjustly terminated from the Position of Inspections manager and subsequently Building Inspector from the Department of Construction and Transportation.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. Defendant did not put forth a defense by failing to meet deadlines.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. This opinion is based on all known facts of the case and know information to the public.
2. When looking at this case, at first glance i find myself siding with the plaintiff. They were being praised by their employers, being active (from a public view) and for all intensive purposes doing the job as needed. However when you look at what the law say's "(1) Unfair dismissal - the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled)." Now when you look, Vroomba did fill the position of Inspections Manager however they provided a reason for their termination, this in itself does not rise to the level of unfair termination.
3. Now being fired as a Building Inspector is a different story, they were not informed that they were going to be fired as a BI, just inspections manager. There was no reason given and then the failure to provide further information to the plaintiff furthered it. This does indeed rise to the level of unfair termination and the court will rule as such.

IV. DECISION
1. The Federal Court of Redmont hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff and hereby grants a modified Prayer for Relief.
2. The Commonwealth is hereby ordered to pay ko531 $30,000 for Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont,


The Federal Court thanks all involved.