And what I think I'm reading between the lines is, if there's any kind of discrimination going on I can use that as leverage to get a better severance package.
That's called extortion, my friend.
And what I think I'm reading between the lines is, if there's any kind of discrimination going on I can use that as leverage to get a better severance package.
That's called extortion, my friend.
I disagree. Extortion is defined by section 2C:20-5 of the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice, and the waiving of a civil claim in exchange for the payment of money is, in no way, extortion. If that were the case, then the settlement of any civil lawsuit would constitute extortion.
I won't report illegal discrimination if you give me a better severance package isn't extortion?
Okay, you're the attorney.
Let's leave out the criminal aspect for the sake of research. If no deal is reached and the reporting starts, if he ever admits that he was the whistleblower, when he tells the EEOC he threatened to report discrimination unless he got a raise, etc. 1. That shoots down his credibility and makes it a plus for the company, 2. He may find himself facing a civil lawsuit either by the EEOC, the company or both.
Well, to be fair, so far he hasn't described anything that suggests he has a discrimination case to begin with. I'm just commenting on what he appears to believe is leverage for negotiations. I'll also acknowledge that he hasn't actually said that's what he's planning; I'm just reading between the lines. But sure, as long as he gets that the two issues are separate and not anything that he can link together, I'm happy to drop it.
It probably has more to do with reduction of labor overhead than it does with age discrimination. There is nothing discriminatory about that.
So you're getting 40 weeks pay, a pro-rated bonus, unused vacation, and job placement services and that's not good enough?
Agree with Bud. (And paddywakk)
Where did the OP say he was going to be offered 40 weeks of severance?