Curse

CyberNigma · May 07, 2009, 03:22 AM // 03:22

Some posters have mentioned he isn't filing for wrongful termination. The reason is because he was employed in Texas, and Texas is an at-will employment state. You can be fired at-will if they give no reason. If you believe that you are discriminated against then you have a case on other grounds, but it's pretty difficult to prove something like that.

haggus71 · May 07, 2009, 03:24 AM // 03:24

He's suing for 24 million. His trip into space was...25 million. Coincidence?

Cacheelma · May 07, 2009, 03:50 AM // 03:50

Guys, please understand. Lord British is just doing his job here.

You know, as a clown.

ogre_jd · May 07, 2009, 03:57 AM // 03:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cacheelma

Guys, please understand. Lord British is just doing his job here.

You know, as a clown.

Sadly, Lord British is long dead. There is now only Richard Garriott.

Raccoon · May 07, 2009, 04:29 AM // 04:29

If he has an issue with NCsoft, he should just do what every other normal person does...

Go to Random arenas America dis 1 and start up a debate...

pumpkin pie · May 07, 2009, 04:54 AM // 04:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

I suggest you all read this, for a lawyers perspective:

http://www.underdevelopmentlaw.com/2...4-million.html

thanks for that informations JR, it is worth tens of millions of dollars

quietkitten · May 07, 2009, 05:02 AM // 05:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyberNigma

Some posters have mentioned he isn't filing for wrongful termination. The reason is because he was employed in Texas, and Texas is an at-will employment state. You can be fired at-will if they give no reason. If you believe that you are discriminated against then you have a case on other grounds, but it's pretty difficult to prove something like that.

Most states are at-will. Contracts give you the option of changing statutory or common law rights such as employment being "at will". In other words, the contract designates whether termination is "wrongful" and not the statutory or common law elements for at will employment. Discrimination and EEOC will, however, always apply. As with choice of law, you essentially opt out of your statutory/common law rights when you enter a contract and the law of the contract governs. Most executive agreements are not at will, but are at fault or at the will of the board. That is likely the only way Garriott could in good faith (to avoid rule 11 attorney sanctions) make the alternative cause of action claim for fraud, whereby he claims that the termination itself was fraudulent. He alleged that the board had not yet made a determination as to the disposition of his stock option agreement at the time he was fired.

Empress Amarox · May 07, 2009, 06:06 AM // 06:06

tl;dr

Hope he wins.

Lonesamurai · May 07, 2009, 06:43 AM // 06:43

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Amarox

Hope he wins.

What?!? why in Dwayna's name do you hope this idiot wins?

He nearly ruined City of Heroes with his insanity and he drove Tabula Rasa into the ground from stupidity

CyberNigma · May 07, 2009, 06:45 AM // 06:45

Quote:

Originally Posted by quietkitten

Most states are at-will. Contracts give you the option of changing statutory or common law rights such as employment being "at will". In other words, the contract designates whether termination is "wrongful" and not the statutory or common law elements for at will employment. Discrimination and EEOC will, however, always apply. As with choice of law, you essentially opt out of your statutory/common law rights when you enter a contract and the law of the contract governs. Most executive agreements are not at will, but are at fault or at the will of the board. That is likely the only way Garriott could in good faith (to avoid rule 11 attorney sanctions) make the alternative cause of action claim for fraud, whereby he claims that the termination itself was fraudulent. He alleged that the board had not yet made a determination as to the disposition of his stock option agreement at the time he was fired.

I think you got the message out of context.

The message was in response to those asking why he didn't file a wrongful termination suit against them. For the reasons both I and you (reiterated) he is filing a breach of contract suit instead.

A wrongful termination suit wouldn't do him much good unless he had very strong grounds as we both mentioned (such as EEOC), whereas a breach of contract suit is very feasible, again for reasons that have already been mentioned in the article and previous posters.

The fact that there is a contract makes it a contract suit and not a wrongful termination suit. I think you're talking about the concept (which in this case is basically the same), whereas I'm talking about what he has to actually call it in court.

While, due to the contract, he may have been wrongfully terminated in respect to that contract, it's usually called breach of contract. Wrongful termination is usually used to mean other things in the state.

Contracts may vary state by state, but at least in Texas they will not change common law rights. In other words, you can sign a contract with an employer here and in the eyes of state employment laws it usually doesn't mean jack. However, it does give you recourse in a breach of contract suit if either side does indeed break the contract. In my industry, here in Texas, we see this happen all the time. You can't sign away your rights any more than the employer can sign away theirs.

If you have a contract with an employer (by industry) that is written up in a way that gives specific reasons they can let you go, and then they let you go without those reasons having been the case, you have a breach suit possible, but you will not hammer them for wrongful termination in the state's eyes. If, however, they don't have those reasons and you suspect they terminated you for something like an EEOC violation, then not only do you have a wrongful termination suit (in particular EEOC), but you also have a breach of contract suit against them for whatever that contract had guaranteed.

I'm not a lawyer so there may come along a lawyer that challenges this practice that stands up. I'm only reciting what I have personally seen in my industry and a few others here in Texas. You especially see this come up (though rarely worth the breach suit for either party) with contracting companies where the contracts and/or employees turn over frequently.

Again though, you have the concepts right, I think your answer was really towards the people I was answering. When you have a contract butting heads with law (common law or otherwise as is the case in Texas), law usually prevails, regardless of what you signed (as far as direct guaranteed rights are involved).

EDIT: Other states may be different, even though they are at-will states. I'm a Veteran, a Texan, and an American so I can't say I am too familiar with how other states handle their business (nor have I ever had the desire to) :-)

AmbientMelody · May 07, 2009, 02:48 PM // 14:48

If that idiot wins, or worse ... I suggest Anet looks for a better publisher. Otherwise NCSoft 'flag titles' such as Aion and GW2 will introduce more and more and more and more microtransactions to pay for dying company. At least, it's the way I'm looking at it.

Coraline Jones · May 07, 2009, 03:13 PM // 15:13

I think that people do not understand the terms of the lawsuit. It all comes down to whether Garriott quit or was fired. Just about any real job out there has the same rules: If you quit, then you don't get much if anything. If you're fired, then you may be entitled to a severance package.

Garriott's contract basically has a stock option clause which turns out to be a so-called "golden parachute" should he get fired. He gets a crapload of money if NCSoft lets him go in other words. There are exceptions to this, such as if he did really stupid things to intentionally get himself fired.

Apparently the "farewell letter" that was posted to Tabula Rasa was not written by him, and it was actually NCSoft. Garriott himself says that he didn't have a problem with it at the time. However, he discovered that NCSoft then used this tactic to basically say that he was effectively agreeing that he was quitting the company. Later, Garriott realizes that because he is officially listed as "voluntarily leaving", then he's not getting a golden parachute after all. He then sues saying that he should have gotten more money because basically NCSoft fired him, and he didn't actually quit after all.

I think that anybody could have seen that Garriott didn't leave voluntarily from NCSoft. It's not much of a secret that Tabula Rasa was a big failure, and the blame has to go on Garriott himself (my gosh, it was called "Richard Garriott's Tabula Rasa" officially). Not to mention that only days after Garriott "quit", Tabula Rasa announces they are shutting down all servers. However, the fact that Garriott didn't say anything or complain when NCSoft told everybody that he was quitting sure implies some kind of consent. In all likelihood, the case will be a difficult win for Garriott. He is probably hoping that NCSoft, rather than waste money and resources on a legal battle, will just settle out of court for a few million dollars.

pinguinius · May 07, 2009, 04:15 PM // 16:15

Regardless of what you think of him/NCSoft, if they partook in the shenanigans he claims, he deserves something. Pretty dickish move on their part if it's true.

Mordakai · May 07, 2009, 04:59 PM // 16:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by AmbientMelody

If that idiot wins, or worse ... I suggest Anet looks for a better publisher. Otherwise NCSoft 'flag titles' such as Aion and GW2 will introduce more and more and more and more microtransactions to pay for dying company. At least, it's the way I'm looking at it.

Here's a question:

Why don't they? I mean, this is a team that left Blizzard to make a free MMORPG!

If they have the balls to leave Blizzard, they certainly know they can leave NCSoft anytime they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JR

I suggest you all read this, for a lawyers perspective:

http://www.underdevelopmentlaw.com/2...4-million.html

"I will not pretend to understand how exercising the option to purchase shares at the same time forces one to sell. If anyone knows the answer to this I would love to hear it."

So, any lawyers out there know how NCSoft could have forced Richard to sell his stock right away?

Empress Amarox · May 07, 2009, 05:18 PM // 17:18

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lonesamurai

What?!? why in Dwayna's name do you hope this idiot wins?

He nearly ruined City of Heroes with his insanity and he drove Tabula Rasa into the ground from stupidity

Possibly being an "Idiot" or not and whether he was known for "stupidity" by some or not, he was still screwed over and should get what he deserves.

blood4blood · May 07, 2009, 05:19 PM // 17:19

Anyone have a link to a copy of the stock option agreement?

I've read the complaint a few times now, already have a pretty good idea how I'd defend if I represented NCsoft (which I don't). I'm wondering if there's some clause in the agreement that answers the "forced to sell" question. (I don't know of anything that would force him to sell, and I'd point out that the article JR linked and the complaint's own allegations about income tax liability are pretty much opposite each other. Questions like that are how people avoid 12(b)(6) motions I suppose.)

Mordakai · May 07, 2009, 05:21 PM // 17:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Amarox

Possibly being an "Idiot" or not and whether he was known for "stupidity" by some or not, he was still screwed over and should get what he deserves.

"Allegedly" screwed over.

I still don't understand how he was forced to sell his stocks when he quit.

And if he was fired instead of quitting, why did he write such a nice good-bye letter?

Mordakai · May 07, 2009, 05:23 PM // 17:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by blood4blood

Anyone have a link to a copy of the stock option agreement?

I've read the complaint a few times now, already have a pretty good idea how I'd defend if I represented NCsoft (which I don't). I'm wondering if there's some clause in the agreement that answers the "forced to sell" question. (I don't know of anything that would force him to sell, and I'd point out that the article JR linked and the complaint's own allegations about income tax liability are pretty much opposite each other. Questions like that are how people avoid 12(b)(6) motions I suppose.)

I think this is it: (it's linked in the article)

http://legalplay.typepad.com/Garriot...20agreemen.pdf

Article 8.3.1 sounds interesting:

If he voluntarily resigns, all stock options which have been vested will be canceled in 90 days.

Does that mean he'd LOSE his stocks if he didn't sell? If so, the question of whether he voluntarily left or was fired becomes pretty important.

Nodakim · May 07, 2009, 05:49 PM // 17:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by Empress Amarox

Possibly being an "Idiot" or not and whether he was known for "stupidity" by some or not, he was still screwed over and should get what he deserves.

But he screwed Anet,so basicly them screwing him back is a good thing?

Mordakai · May 07, 2009, 05:54 PM // 17:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodakim

But he screwed Anet,so basicly them screwing him back is a good thing?

Anet is not NCSoft.

(Unless you are referring to another incident where Richard screwed over Anet?)