IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS
The Commonwealth of Redmont moves to dismiss this case under
Rule 5.5 for lack of a claim.
Your Honor, the plaintiff lists one claim for relief, which is unfair dismissal, but fails to provide any substantial facts demonstrating how the dismissal was unfair. Government Departments can terminate employees at any time to ensure proper department management.
The Commercial Standards Act provides a cut-and-dry definition of Unfair Dismissal: "The unjust termination of an employee." This definition provides a simple, straightforward response to being justified. The Plaintiff failed in their role outlined within defense exhibit
(d-11). A reason was provided to the Plaintiff. While the defendant may disagree with this, they were adequately notified of the reason for this dismissal as cited by the Secretary of Construction and Transportation; the Plaintiff was further allowed 24 hours to be able to context this termination with the department and choose to leave the discord and then return and file this suit.
As demonstrated within this thread, the Plaintiff is going on a witch hunt, as some may describe in their crusade, to attempt to gain monetarily from a simple dismissal. The Plaintiff is directly arguing against the chair in not liking how the case they brought before the court. The Plaintiff has further demonstrated that they have failed to understand the simple procedures of the court and intends to simply move to a different judge each time they don't get a ruling they like.
However, the facts of the case remain. The Commonwealth did, in fact, provide a reason for the dismissal within D-11. The Plaintiff was terminated for poor job performance. They also insinuate within their original complaint, which this court has determined to be false, that they were fired without reason from the Building Inspector. We further have proven that the Plaintiff was promoted from their position within the department, thus leaving the former role of Building Inspector altogether. This point alone removes the only claim they have of 'unfair dismissal' as the only one they mentioned being provided no reason for. When, in fact, they did not hold that position but rather was an Inspection Manager.
It is clear here that we merely have a disgruntled former employee wishing to attempt to make a cash run. The Plaintiff fails to connect what in the law the commonwealth broke. We provided a reason for dismissal, which is straightforward in saying they failed in their roles. They further have admitted within discovery for leaving the discord instead of contesting the termination or asking clarifying questions on their dismissal.
For these reasons, we respectfully request that this case be dismissed with prejudice.