Lawsuit: Adjourned xEndeavour v. Commonwealth [2023] FCR 19

[End]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff alleges that the Department of Construction & Transport has unfairly terminated the Plaintiff, a violation of the Employee Protection Act.

I. PARTIES
1. xEndeavour
2. Department of Construction and Transport

II. FACTS
1. The Plaintiff served in the Department of Construction & Transport since the Department was formed approximately 2.5 - 3 years ago.
2. The Plaintiff, at the time of dismissal, was a Senior Constructor in DCT Leadership.
3. The Plaintiff informed the Department that they would be overseas and required an exemption until 1 February 2023 as a result of their absence.
4. The Plaintiff was dismissed from the Department on the 19th of January for inactivity and failure to contribute to DCT projects.
5. The Plaintiff contributed to a project the night before on the 18th of January, helping the Secretary with the Reveille Yacht Club build, while overseas and operating from Discord.
6. The Plaintiff contributed to DCT discussions consistently throughout December and January.
7. It was common knowledge among DCT leadership that the plaintiff was away for most of December and January.
8. The Plaintiff's position was replaced immediately after the Plaintiff was terminated, violating EPA Section 3.

3 - Unfair Dismissal
(1) Unfair dismissal is the unjust termination of an employee. (e.g. a position is made vacant without reason only to be immediately filled).

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Plaintiff was fired for not being active when the plaintiff has been active, despite being overseas.
2. The Plaintiff was fired for not informing the Department that they'd be away, despite the plaintiff informing the Department that they'd be overseas.
3. The Plaintiff was subject to a targeted termination, evidenced by the low activity of other Constructors who have not been terminated.

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. Reinstatement.
OR
2. Lost income amounting to $200,000. This is based on an estimate income of 10 large builds.

V. EVIDENCE
Exhibit 1 - Proof of informing the Department that Plaintiff would be away and required an exemption.

Exhibit 2 - Termination Notice 19 January

Exhibit 3 - Contribution to a Project on 18 January

Exhibit 4 - Evidence of engagement since December 1

Exhibit 5 - Evidence of the plaintiff's role being immediately replaced

 

[End]

Further Evidence:
Exhibit 6 - Record of Works
This is a non-exhaustive list of projects the Plaintiff has undertaken or assisted with since October 1:

Convention Centre (100%)

Spawn Bus Move (100%)

Art Gallery Move and Interior (100%)

Willow Interchange (Supervised)

Aventura Interchange + Access Road (Started)

Reveille NS/EW Highway Interchange (Cleaned up, 40%)

Henley Police Station (100%)

Reveille Yacht Club (Advised)

Area 69 (30%, at request of the President)

Government House Renovation (100%, at request of the President)

 

[avelanie]

Idc if I get a contempt of court or whatever, but don't come here saying you build the RYC for the DCT. You asked us to build it, we are currently building it, and you decide that we are "inactive" and decide to build it yourself, even though you are no longer employed within the DCT.

 

[End]

MOTION TO STRIKE

The information provided by the member of the public is incorrect.

The staff project was given to the DCT to complete and while working for the DCT I was advising the DCT Secretary and coaching them while they were building it (only hours before I was fired, see exhibit 3).

This project was later revoked from the DCT's control.

 

[Aladeen]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS
The @Attorney General's Office is required to appear before the court in the case of the xEndeavour v. Commonwealth [2023] FCR 19. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment in favor of the plaintiff.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Aladeen]

I am hereby charging @avelanie with one count of contempt of court. Please refrain from speaking in cases where you have not been summoned.

 

[Claxx77]

Your honour, I request 12 hours extension because my work got deleted and I'm writing it again.

 

[Aladeen]

Extension granted

 

[Claxx77]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
MOTION TO DISMISS


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant


Motion to Dismiss

3. The Plaintiff informed the Department that they would be overseas and required an exemption until 1 February 2023 as a result of their absence.

The plaintiff should have informed the department. They only requested an exemption for their buildings until 1 February 2023. (Exhibit 1) The department has its inactivity notice system implemented in its discord server. (Exhibit 2) If you are going to be inactive for a while, you have to send a message with the correct format to the channel created for inactivity notices. (Exhibit 3)

4. The Plaintiff was dismissed from the Department on the 19th of January for inactivity and failure to contribute to DCT projects.

The plaintiff failed to report their inactivity notice but this was not the only reason for this. The plaintiff did not follow the instructions from the secretary. The plaintiff stopped doing the tasks given by the department because the department doesn’t approve the projects that he wants. (Exhibit 4) So, the department leadership decided to terminate the plaintiff's employment with the Department of Construction and Transportation.

They only participated in 2 projects since November and documented them. (Exhibit 5 and 6)

8. The Plaintiff's position was replaced immediately after the Plaintiff was terminated, violating EPA Section 3.

The plaintiff’s position is not replaced after the termination. The replacement was made for the galavance’s position. (Exhibit 7 and 8)


Writing to DCT Chat is not a contribution to projects. Everyone can write their opinions. But the important thing is building and helping the department members.

The plaintiff did 2 projects that are documented in the department. Other things that the plaintiff has done were not given by the department and don’t mean any activity for the department. (Exhibit 9)

The plaintiff had to write an inactivity notice like all other employees. But they failed to do. So the plaintiff's employment is terminated. With all evidence, you can see that this termination was not unfair. So this case should be dismissed.


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 2nd day of February 2023

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Relevance

Disputed Evidence/Statements
1.

The plaintiff did not follow the instructions from the secretary. The plaintiff stopped doing the tasks given by the department because the department doesn’t approve the projects that he wants. (Exhibit 4) So, the department leadership decided to terminate the plaintiff's employment with the Department of Construction and Transportation.

2. Exhibit 4

Rationale
This case concerns the Plaintiff's termination for:

Lack of engagement and failure to perform to the DCT standards of being active within the department and not contributing to various construction projects.

The DCT cannot rationalise an unfair dismissal case with more reasons for termination which were not listed in the official termination notice.

The Plaintiff was fired for inactivity and lack of engagement. The Defence is now asserting that the plaintiff was fired for insubordination. Regardless of whether there is a claim of insubordination, the Plaintiff was not terminated for insubordination.

This statement is therefore irrelevant to the contents of the case and only serves to degrade the credibility of the Plaintiff when provided out of context and without the appropriate timestamps.

For context, exhibit 4 is me expressing my disappointment with the state of the Department leadership on December 20 2022. Many changes were made to the department following this statement, and as you can see in exhibit 3, I was satisfied that changes had been made to continue working on projects. As you can see, I offered to jump online later in the day on Jan 18th to assist the Secretary with a build that she had asked for assistance on.

 

[Claxx77]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION


Your honour, Department of Construction and Transportation is not rationalising new reasons for their termination.

The plaintiff was fired because of Lack of engagement and failure to perform to the DCT standards of being active within the department and not contributing to various construction projects. The plaintiff was not fired for insubordination.

The plaintiff’s engagement and activity have reduced because he failed to do tasks given by the secretary.

So the statement and exhibit 4 is relevant to case and this objection should be overruled.

I wrote all reasons for his termination. I’m sorry if this caused confusion.

 

[End]

@Aladeen

 

[dygyee]

At the request of the presiding judge, I will now be taking over this case.

 

[dygyee]

I will be denying the motion to dismiss for the following reasons:

The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff failed to inform the DCT, however the Plaintiff clearly informed the DCT and was told that his extension was logged. If the DCT wanted xEndeavour to use the proper format, they should have informed him of this when he asked for his extension. Furthermore the Defense stated that xEndeavour was fired for more than just inactivity, however in the notice that Nacho gave to xEndeavour, he informed End that he was being fired for inactivity and not failure to follow instructions. As for End's replacement, it is unclear at the time if the DCT in fact hired someone to replace End after he was fired, and for that reason, the remainder of this case is needed to determine if End is the victim of Unfair Dismissal from the DCT.

We will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Relevance

Disputed Evidence/Statements
1.

2. Exhibit 4

Rationale
This case concerns the Plaintiff's termination for:

The DCT cannot rationalise an unfair dismissal case with more reasons for termination which were not listed in the official termination notice.

The Plaintiff was fired for inactivity and lack of engagement. The Defence is now asserting that the plaintiff was fired for insubordination. Regardless of whether there is a claim of insubordination, the Plaintiff was not terminated for insubordination.

This statement is therefore irrelevant to the contents of the case and only serves to degrade the credibility of the Plaintiff when provided out of context and without the appropriate timestamps.

For context, exhibit 4 is me expressing my disappointment with the state of the Department leadership on December 20 2022. Many changes were made to the department following this statement, and as you can see in exhibit 3, I was satisfied that changes had been made to continue working on projects. As you can see, I offered to jump online later in the day on Jan 18th to assist the Secretary with a build that she had asked for assistance on.

View attachment 31710

Your honour, this objection remains unanswered

 

[dygyee]

The objection is sustained, and that is part of the reason the motion to dismiss was rejected.

A reminder that the Plaintiff must post their opening statement within approximately 39 hours.

 

[Claxx77]

I will be denying the motion to dismiss for the following reasons:

The Defendant claims that the Plaintiff failed to inform the DCT, however the Plaintiff clearly informed the DCT and was told that his extension was logged. If the DCT wanted xEndeavour to use the proper format, they should have informed him of this when he asked for his extension. Furthermore the Defense stated that xEndeavour was fired for more than just inactivity, however in the notice that Nacho gave to xEndeavour, he informed End that he was being fired for inactivity and not failure to follow instructions. As for End's replacement, it is unclear at the time if the DCT in fact hired someone to replace End after he was fired, and for that reason, the remainder of this case is needed to determine if End is the victim of Unfair Dismissal from the DCT.

We will now move on to opening statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to post their opening statement.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE REDMONT
Motion to Reconsider

Your honour, the plaintiff requested an exemption, not an extension. It is completely different. Also, an exemption is not a notice of absence. The employees have to write an inactivity notice if they want to inform the department that they are going to be inactive for a while. An exemption can be requested for your buildings to protect them from evictions. The plaintiff requested an exemption. They did not file an inactivity notice. You can clearly read this on the ticket.
So the defendant did not inform the department. You can also see the difference between extension and exemption in department policy. So this case should be dismissed.

The relevant part of the department policy.

EVICTION EXCUSES

Players may use a DCT request as an excuse to avoid eviction should they follow the processes outlined here. Players must specify the ticket number of their build request on their plot should they wish to provide an excuse. Since they can only request one paste at a time, the excuse will only apply to that one paste. Otherwise, players are prohibited from using that excuse.

EXTENSIONS/ EXEMPTIONS
Exemptions: If a player has personal circumstances that prevent playing for a short period the DCT may sometimes agree to avoid evicting their plots for a set time by issuing exemptions, usually up to 2 weeks max and not stackable. This will be determined by the secretary and can be requested in a DCT ticket.

Extensions: If a player has an open report and needs additional time to resolve it they may request additional time by posting a response to the report with progress made and opening a DCT ticket to request additional time. This extension will be determined by the secretary and is usually up to two weeks max. If the report reason is not resolved by the end of the extension it will be evicted like normal.

 

[End]

Your honour, if it may please the court in responding to the above motion to reconsider, I'd like to reiterate that the Plaintiff wishes to dispute the notion that they were inactive.

 

[dygyee]

I will be denying the motion to reconsider. The Plaintiff had no reason to request an extension. An extension is for if they were told to do something and they needed more time. They asked to be exempt from doing certain work because they will be gone. They did in fact inform the DCT that they would be overseas for a certain amount of time.

This is a reminder that the Plaintiff’s time frame to post their opening statement has not changed.

 

[End]

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT

Your honour, the Defence has failed to file a Response to Complaint in the allotted time. The Plaintiff requests that the court proceed with a summary judgement based on the facts of the case:
1. The Plaintiff served in the Department of Construction & Transport since the Department was formed approximately 2.5 - 3 years ago.
2. The Plaintiff, at the time of dismissal, was a Senior Constructor in DCT Leadership.
3. The Plaintiff informed the Department that they would be overseas and required a plot exemption until 1 February 2023 as a result of their absence. Therefore, the Department leadership were well aware of the Senior Constructors vacation.
4. The Plaintiff was dismissed from the Department on the 19th of January for inactivity and failure to contribute to DCT projects.
5. The Plaintiff contributed to a project the night before on the 18th of January, helping the Secretary with the Reveille Yacht Club build, while overseas and operating from Discord.
6. The Plaintiff was not inactive and was fulfilling their duties as a Senior Constructor in contributing to projects and discussions in leadership. The Plaintiff contributed to DCT discussions consistently throughout December and January.
7. It was common knowledge among DCT leadership that the plaintiff was away for most of December and January.
8. The Plaintiff's position was replaced immediately after the Plaintiff was terminated, violating EPA Section 3 with the appointment of Vanillachai79 and Sleepyjay_ to the position of Senior Constructor.
9. The Government has tried to justify the termination by providing other incorrect and irrelevant evidence to the court in order to discredit the Plaintiff's claim.

The Plaintiff requests that the Federal Court finds this termination unjust and issues a Writ of Mandamus to reverse the illegal termination.

The Plaintiff requests that, in addition to the Writ of Mandamus, the Federal Court issue a six-month long injunction to prevent the Department from terminating the Plaintiff for anything short of an Illegal Act. The Government has attempted to discredit the Plaintiff's ~three years of service to the Department's leadership through making incorrect claims to justify the termination. It is likely that, if reinstated, the Plaintiff will be fired for something else out of spite for suing the Department soon after.

The Plaintiff requests that the Department of Construction and Transport Secretary and Deputy Secretary make a joint statement to publicly apologise for firing the Plaintiff.

If the Court is able to action the above amendments to the prayer for relief, the Plaintiff does not request any financial compensation in the form of damages for lost income.

@dygyee

 

[dygyee]

The Plaintiff has failed to post an opening statement within their allotted time. For that reason, I hereby charge xEndeavour with 1 count of contempt of court, and order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.

The Defense has 48 hours to accept the request for a summary judgement, or if they do not wish to have a summary judgement, they must post their opening statement within those 48 hours.

 

[End]

Your honour, the plaintiff is waiting for the Defence to file a response to complaint, does a motion to dismiss satisfy this requirement? Apologies, I misspoke and said that we were waiting on an opening statement before, which I've now amended.

I'd also like to raise that a motion for summary judgement is a motion to skip a trial, so it would not be appropriate to file an opening statement while a summary judgement motion is active.

 

[dygyee]

A motion to dismiss is a response to a case.

If you are trying to defend your failure to post an opening statement, you did not post the motion for summary judgement until after your time expired.

If you are referring to the Defense posting an opening statement, it is only if they don’t wish to have a summary judgement.

 

[End]

Your honour there was a misunderstanding that the Defence needed to provide a response to complaint, as required by court procedure. once 48 hours had passed, we filed a motion for summary judgement based on the lack of a response to complaint.

If the Defence does not agree to a summary judgement before going to opening statements we request that the plaintiff be afforded the opportunity to provide an opening statement.

You can see that the Plaintiff has been active and present throughout the case, so it is clear that there was a misunderstanding that a motion to dismiss now serves as a response to complaint. It was my understanding that previously the court has compelled defence teams to provide response to complaints, even after providing motions to dismiss.

 

[dygyee]

I will be denying this request as I clearly stated that you have 48 hours to post your opening statement along with multiple reminders.

 

[Claxx77]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
Motion to Recuse

1. Dygyee is under investigation by congress. This damages the reliability of the Honorable Judge Dygyee for the defendant.

2. Dygyee is not thoroughly reading the defendant’s arguments. On both motions, the Honorable Judge Dygyee responded with irrelevant arguments. And this also damages the reliability of Judge Dygyee on the defence side.

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Assumes facts not in evidence

1. Dygyee is under investigation by congress. This damages the reliability of the Honorable Judge Dygyee for the defendant.

The Judge is innocent until proven guilty. The legislature exists to ensure accountability and is regularly investigating judicial members.

By recusing individuals based on their involvement with a congressional investigation, congress is able to manipulate the courts, or others are able to manipulate the courts, by making frivolous claims to congress to place am judge under investigation.

 

[Mask3D_WOLF]

I will be responding to this objection (if given permission) being the Solicitor General.

Your Honor, may the state reply to the objection?

 

[dygyee]

There is no need to respond to this objection as I am denying it right now. It is not the Plaintiff's job to respond to a motion for recusal that is the judges job in the first instance, and the Supreme Court's job in the second instance. This is a warning to both parties right now to not talk out of turn. If someone talks out of turn, they will be charged with contempt of court.

As for the motion to recuse, I will be denying this motion. Firstly, I am not aware of any congressional investigation, and even if I am being investigated, I have not been found guilty of any crime. Furthermore claiming that I have not read your motions is a complete lie. I always read every word of every case that I am presiding over, and when ruling on a motion or the case as a whole, I will reread what I am ruling on to ensure that I am making the proper ruling.

 

[dygyee]

The defense has failed to post an opening statement within the allotted time. I hereby charge Claxx77 with 1 count of contempt of court as he was representing the Commonwealth at the time. I hereby order the DOJ to fine/jail him appropriately.

We will now move onto witnesses. Both parties have 48 hours from now to post their list of witnesses, or state that they have none.

 

[dygyee]

Both parties have failed to provide their list of witnesses. Because of this, we will be moving on to closing statements. The Plaintiff has 48 hours to provide their closing statement. Failure to provide a closing statement will result in a dismissal.

I hereby charge both mask3d_wolf and xEndeavour with 1 count of contempt of court each. And I order the DOJ to fine/jail both of them appropriately.

 

[End]

I will be denying this request as I clearly stated that you have 48 hours to post your opening statement along with multiple reminders.

MOTION TO RECONSIDER

The Plaintiff was under the assumption that the Defence is required to respond to the case with a response to complaint prior to opening statements.

This assumption was reinforced in SCR 7 when, despite entering a motion to dismiss, the Defence was still required to submit a response to the charges presented against them.

 

[dygyee]

I will be denying this motion to reconsider, the Defense is never required to respond to a motion or objection. They are given time, however if the presiding judge is already going to be denying the motion, there is no need to wait for a response. Furthermore, you shouldn't be waiting for the Defense to post something if the presiding judge tells you to post something.

I would like to remind the Plaintiff of their time limit for their closing statement.

 

[End]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant

CLOSING STATEMENT

Your honour, this is a simple case. It is a textbook example of an unfair dismissal.
If being fired for inactivity, when you are clearly active, when you are doing your job by assisting and mentoring your Secretary's build 6 hours prior to being terminated, then what is unfair dismissal?

As a senior constructor, it is my job to share my experience and skill with my peers as a mentor and a coach. As a senior constructor I advise leadership, it says so in the duty statement.

So, what part of me helping the secretary with her build 6 hours prior to being terminated, actively contributing to leadership discussions, and leadership voting, was not consistent with the expectations of my job role to consider me inactive?

Our employee protection laws are designed to protect against people being fired for incorrect reasons, like being terminated for being inactive and not contributing when you are active and contributing.

Our employee protection laws are designed to protect against positions being made unfairly vacant and then immediately filled, like being fired from Leadership and being immediately replaced by two other members of the department.

Our employee protection laws are designed to protect against unfair terminations, like being fired for inactivity and then having your former employer make up a number of other reasons to supplement their illegal actions after the fact.

Your honour, if none of this contributes to an unfair dismissal, then I cannot even picture what an unfair dismissal is.

The evidence presented to you in this case is in the spirit of what the Employee Protection Act was designed to prevent. The evidence presented to you in this case is damning for the DCT.

I'd ask that the Court follow through with the prayers for relief, in that it should grant an injunction preventing the department from firing me, and issuing a writ of mandamus to set a strong precedent for industrial relations, to correct a wrong, but also to protect the defendant whose job is under threat upon the changing of administrations. While I have been temporarily appointed to lead the DCT, the legitimacy of the role is under fire and I have no guarantee of having my job back at the end of the week beyond the appointment.

The Plaintiff rests its case.

 

[dygyee]

The Defendant now has 48 hours to post their closing statement.

 

[Claxx77]

OBJECTION
Improper Evidence

Your honour, the plaintiff added new evidence in their closing statement without given permission from the court so I request the evidence to be removed from the court records.

 

[Claxx77]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION


xEndeavour
Plaintiff

v.

The Commonwealth
Defendant


Closing Statement


Your honour, at this point, I believe I need to explain what happened within the department again in chronological order.

On 20/11/2022, the plaintiff opened a DCT ticket and requested an exemption for his buildings. He did not mention any possible inactivity within the department. You can clearly read this in the plaintiff’s and defendant’s Exhibit 1.

Now I need to mention the difference between the exemption, extension and inactivity notice.
An exemption can be requested to protect your buildings from eviction reports. And the extension is to extend the time given in the eviction report to solve the problems.


Department Policy

Exemptions:

• If a player has personal circumstances that prevent playing for a short period the DCT may sometimes agree to avoid evicting their plots for a set time by issuing exemptions, usually up to 2 weeks max and not stackable.
• This will be determined by the secretary and can be requested in a DCT ticket.

Extensions:

• If a player has an open report and needs additional time to resolve it they may request additional time by posting a response to the report with progress made and opening a DCT ticket to request additional time.
• This extension will be determined by the secretary and is usually up to two weeks max.
• If the report reason is not resolved by the end of the extension it will be evicted like normal.

But an inactivity notice is used to inform the department that you are going to be inactive and this should be requested by every employee if they will be inactive. (Defendant’s Exhibit 2 and 3)

The plaintiff requested an exemption and did not file an inactivity notice. This means the department was not informed.

The plaintiff argues that he was active and participated in DCT projects. But this is not correct. As you can see in exhibit 5 and 6, the department members are logging what they did in the logging channel to show they are active and working. You can see the last projects that the plaintiff has been involved in in the defendant’s exhibits 5 and 6. The last project that the plaintiff has been involved in was almost 2 months ago. Which shows that the plaintiff was inactive. Writing to the secretary is not proof of activity.

On 01/08/2023, the leadership decided to appoint vanillachai to galavance’s position. (Defendant’s Exhibit 7)
The plaintiff argues that their position was immediately replaced. But this is not correct as I stated in the motion to dismiss. But they are still saying the same thing which is not correct and can be clearly seen in the evidence.

On the 18th of January, the plaintiff was fired from the department for inactivity. This termination was legal and you can confirm this by looking at the all evidence provided by the defence.

So the department did not violate EPA and terminated the plaintiff rightfully.
I thank the court for the time that they have spent in this case.

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Improper Evidence

Your honour, the plaintiff added new evidence in their closing statement without given permission from the court so I request the evidence to be removed from the court records.

If I may respond to the objection - the Plaintiff did not have access to this evidence until they were instated as the Acting DCT Secretary on the weekend and has therefore not had an opportunity to submit it prior to closing statements.
The evidence supports an argument made throughout the case and the Defence has had an opportunity to address the supporting evidence in their closing statement. The evidence does not impact upon the fairness of the trial in being submitted after the defence has an opportunity to respond.

 

[End]

OBJECTION
Relevance

The last project that the plaintiff has been involved in was almost 2 months ago

This sentence is misleading, inferring that the plaintiff was not involved in a project for 2 months leading up to their dismissal. The plaintiff was terminated 1 month ago. The statement is also factually incorrect as I was participating in a project with the DCT Secretary on January 18 (see exhibit 3).

 

[Claxx77]

RESPONSE TO OBJECTION

The plaintiff made an objection to the relevancy of my statement. But the plaintiff's claim in his statement is not related to something about the relevancy of my statement.

 

[dygyee]

I will be accepting the objection for improper evidence. Even if this photo was only recently obtained, the person that is providing the new evidence must ask the court if they can provide the evidence prior to posting it in their closing statement. The new evidence in xEndeavour’s closing statement will be struck from the record, and not considered when writing a verdict.

 

[dygyee]

I will be denying the objection on the grounds of relevance as when xEndeavour completed his last project with the DCT is very important to this case. With that being said, the court will look at the timeline as it is and understands that 2 months ago is only 1 month prior to the Plaintiff’s dismissal from the DCT.

 

[dygyee]

I would like to thank both parties for their closing statement, a verdict will be posted within the coming days.

 

[dygyee]

Verdict

IN THE DISTRICT/FEDERAL/SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
xEndeavour v. The Commonwealth of Redmont [2023] FCR 19

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff knew that he was going to be overseas, and won't be able to help the DCT, so he asked for an exemption from certain projects that he wouldn't be able to complete while he was away.
2. After the DCT gave him an exemption until February first, they decided to fire him anyway on January 19th for failing to contribute to projects.
3. This is even after the Plaintiff had been working on a project for the DCT from overseas the day prior.
4. Immediately after the Plaintiff was fired, the DCT hired someone to replace him.
5. Not only was the Plaintiff fired, but there are other constructors in the DCT who do a lot less work than him, that weren't terminated.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Plaintiff didn't put his inactivity notice in the proper place, if he wanted an exemption, he should've filed a notice in the proper place with the proper format.
2. The plaintiff only helped with 2 projects, the others that he claims he id were not for the department.
3. An exemption is not a notice of absence. An exemption is to protect your building from eviction reports. The Plaintiff only requested an exemption and did not file a notice of absence.

III. THE COURT OPINION
1. It is clear the the Plaintiff did inform the DCT of his extended absence.
2. He did use the term exemption, however unlike the Defense argued, he used the term while asked for an exemption from participating in projects that he wasn't able to. An exemption is being free of from any obligation, and he requested to be free from participating in projects.
3. A representative of the Department leadership, Nacho, understood, and said he logged this exemption.
4. Despite logging this exemption, xEndeavour was unfairly fired from the DCT for not participating in projects even though he had an exemption. This violates section 3 of the Employee Protections Act.
5. The Employee Protection act doesn't give an amount the one is owed for being unfairly terminated, nor can the courts force the DCT to rehire the Plaintiff.
6. According to precedents set by both [2021] FCR 84, and [2022] DCR 59, the Plaintiff is owed for lost salary, being required to find a new job, and the cost of any exams the Plaintiff took in order to obtain the original job.

IV. DECISION
1. This court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff and orders the Commonwealth of Redmont to pay xEndeavour $5,800 in lost salaries, as well as $255 in fees for exams and being required to find a new job.
2. This totals at $6,055 that is owed to xEndeavour from the Commonwealth of Redmont.

The Federal Court thanks all involved.