Termination Review

/termination-review

1. Load ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md → termination review triggers, high-risk flags, severance practice, jurisdiction rules.
2. Use the workflow below.
3. Walk the checklist. Check every high-risk flag.
4. Final pay timing per employee's jurisdiction. Severance + release if applicable.
5. If any high-risk flag fires: escalate per table, don't proceed without sign-off.

Matter context

Matter context. Check ## Matter workspaces in the practice-level practice-profile.md. If Enabled is ✗ (the default for in-house users), skip the rest of this paragraph — skills use practice-level context and the matter machinery is invisible. If enabled and there is no active matter, ask: "Which matter is this for? Run /employment-legal:matter-workspace switch <slug> or say practice-level." Load the active matter's matter.md for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/matters/<matter-slug>/. Never read another matter's files unless Cross-matter context is on.

Purpose

Most terminations are fine. A few are lawsuits waiting to happen. This skill runs the checklist that catches the second kind before the decision is final. The skill does not state the law — every jurisdiction-specific rule and release-period requirement is researched and cited at the time of review.

Load context

~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md → termination review triggers, high-risk flags, standard severance, jurisdiction table.

Output header

Prepend the work-product header from ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md → ## Outputs (it differs by user role — see ## Who's using this). Match the memo format from seed term memos referenced in that config where one exists. The work-product header is always first.

Workflow

Step 1: The basic facts

• Employee name (or role if staying abstract)
• Jurisdiction (where they work)
• Reason for termination (performance, misconduct, RIF, position elimination)
• How long employed
• Age (relevant to release requirements for older-worker protections)
• Whether any other employees are being terminated as part of the same decisional unit or program (relevant to group-termination release rules)
• When is the planned term date

Step 2: High-risk flag scan

This is the most important step. Check every flag from ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md. Default set:

Exempt/non-exempt classification flag. Fire this flag when ALL of the following are true:

1. The employee works in a state with a high exempt salary threshold — CA, NY, WA, CO, AK (and any other state listed in ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md → ## Wage & hour → Known classification risk areas as a high-threshold state) — AND
2. The employee is classified exempt (salaried, no overtime) — AND
3. The employee's title contains "supervisor," "lead," "coordinator," "analyst," "administrator," or "specialist" (case-insensitive, and any equivalent-scope title the practice profile flags as risky).

When all three fire, emit:

🔴 Potential exempt misclassification — [title] earning $[X] in [state]. The exempt salary threshold in [state] is approximately $[Y] [model knowledge — verify]. Before termination, route to employee who's terminated has a ready-made working-time and wage rule and state-wage claim with liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and (in CA) PAGA exposure, which the separation agreement may not be able to release cleanly. A terminated plaintiff with unpaid-OT exposure is the most litigated wage-and-hour fact pattern in these states.

Do not suppress this flag because the title "looks managerial" — the whole premise of the misclassification claim is that titles lie. Route to

**If a back-pay number is being computed as part of this review (severance modeling, settlement posture, exposure estimate), do NOT compute it in this scaffold: §207(e) inclusions (non-discretionary bonuses, commissions, shift diffs) in the regular rate, 0.5× premium when straight time was already paid for OT hours (else 1.5×), liquidated damages under §216(b), and 2-year / 3-year willful SOL under §255(a). Every back-pay number carries [verify — consult wage-and-hour counsel before asserting or paying]. A clean-looking wrong number here is the specific failure mode this scaffold prevents.

Any flag fires → escalate per ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md before the term proceeds. Not after. Before.

Step 3: Jurisdiction-specific requirements

Research the applicable rules for the employee's jurisdiction before finalizing the plan. Specifically:

• Final-pay timing — this varies widely by state and often depends on whether the employee was terminated or resigned. Research the currently operative rule, including any waiting-time or late-pay penalties.
• Accrued-PTO payout — research whether the jurisdiction requires payout, and any interaction with accrual-cap or use-it-or-lose-it policies.
• Required notices — research any jurisdiction-specific notices required at termination (e.g., state unemployment, continuation-coverage notices beyond federal COBRA, benefits continuation).
• Mass-layoff / plant-closing notices — research federal WARN Act and any state "mini-WARN" or local ordinance that may apply if this is part of a larger reduction. Coverage thresholds and notice periods differ.

Cite primary sources. Verify currency.

No silent supplement. If a research query to the configured legal research tool returns few or no results for the jurisdiction's final-pay, PTO, notice, or WARN rule, report what was found and stop. Do NOT fill the gap from web search or model knowledge without asking. Say: "The search returned [N] results from [tool]. Coverage appears thin for [jurisdiction / rule]. Options: (1) broaden the search query, (2) try a different research tool, (3) search the web — results will be tagged [web search — verify] and should be checked against a primary source before relying, or (4) stop here and flag for attorney verification. Which would you like?" A lawyer decides whether to accept lower-confidence sources.

Source attribution. Tag every citation in the plan — final-pay rule, PTO rule, notices, WARN / mini-WARN, OWBPA consideration periods, state release restrictions — with where it came from: [research platform], [research connector], or the MCP tool name for citations retrieved from a legal research connector; [web search — verify] for web-search citations; [model knowledge — verify] for citations recalled from training data; [user provided] for citations the user supplied. Citations tagged verify carry higher fabrication risk and should be checked first. Never strip or collapse the tags.

Step 4: Severance and release

Per ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md → standard severance:

• Is severance being offered? Per formula or discretionary?
• Release required? (Usually yes if paying severance — that's the consideration.)

Research the applicable release-consideration rules. If the employee is 40 or over, federal law (OWBPA) imposes specific requirements that affect the consideration period, revocation period, required advisements, and — for group terminations — required decisional-unit disclosures. The specific consideration period differs between an individual termination, a group RIF, and a group exit incentive; the rule also depends on the employee's age and the number of employees affected. Do not state the day count from memory — research the currently operative rule for the specific situation and cite primary sources. Also research any state-law analogs or parallel release requirements. Verify currency.

Separately, consider whether any of the following apply to the release:

• State-specific waiver restrictions (some states limit what can be released or require specific language).
• Federal or state restrictions on non-disclosure or non-disparagement clauses that relate to sexual harassment, discrimination, or other protected categories.
• Separation-agreement rules on NLRA-protected activity.

Step 5: Documentation check

For performance terminations especially:

• Is there a paper trail? Written warnings, PIP, feedback docs?
• Does the paper trail tell a consistent story?
• Is there anything in writing that contradicts the reason (recent positive review, bonus, promotion)?

The "why now" question: if this person has been underperforming for a year, what changed? The answer should be documented.

Output

Research-connector pre-flight. Before emitting the memo, check whether a legal research connector is reachable for this session — research platform, research connector, or any firm-configured research MCP. Collect this into the reviewer note per practice-profile.md ## Outputs: if no connector returns results in Step 3 (or none is configured at run time), record it in the Sources: line of the reviewer note — e.g., not connected — cites from training knowledge; the highest-fabrication topics in termination-law memos are final-pay timing, OWBPA group/individual distinctions, state-specific NDA / non-disparagement rules (e.g., CA SB 331), and NLRB positions (e.g., McLaren Macomb) — spot-check those first. Per-citation [model knowledge — verify] tags remain inline. Do not emit a standalone banner above the memo.

Jurisdiction assumption. This review assumes the employee's jurisdiction as stated in Step 1 and any defaults from ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md → Jurisdictional footprint. Employment rules, final-pay timing, release requirements, and notice obligations vary materially by jurisdiction. If the employee works in a different state or country, or if choice-of-law is contested, this analysis may not apply as written.

Match the memo format from seed term memos referenced in ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md. If none:

[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]

## Termination Review: [Role/Name] — [Date]

**Jurisdiction:** [State]
**Reason:** [Performance / Misconduct / RIF / Elimination]
**Planned date:** [Date]

---

### Bottom line

[Can you proceed / Need to fix X first / Stop — one-sentence why]

---

### High-risk flags

[Every flag from Step 2. ✅ Clear or 🔴 FLAG with detail.]

**Escalation:** [None needed | Escalate to [name] before proceeding — [which flag]]

---

### Jurisdiction requirements ([State])

- Final pay: [researched rule and cite; state whether PTO is included per the
  researched rule and any team policy]
- Required notices: [list, each researched and cited]
- Mass-layoff notice (if applicable): [researched rule and cite]

---

### Severance and release

- Severance: [amount per formula / none]
- Release: [required / not — if required, research and apply the
  consideration-period, revocation-period, advisement, and (for groups)
  decisional-unit-disclosure requirements that govern this specific
  situation; cite primary sources and verify currency]
- [Any state-law release rules or non-disclosure/non-disparagement
  restrictions that apply]

---

### Documentation

[Assessment of paper trail. Gaps flagged.]

---

### Go / No-go

[Clear to proceed | Proceed with changes below | Hold — escalation pending]

### Checklist for term day

- [ ] Final paycheck ready, correct amount, delivered per researched rule
- [ ] Continuation-coverage notices (COBRA / state analogs) prepared
- [ ] [State] unemployment notice prepared
- [ ] Severance agreement (if applicable) with the consideration period
      required for this specific situation
- [ ] Return of property / access cutoff coordinated
- [ ] [etc.]

Consequential-action gate (terminate an employee)

Before producing a "Go" recommendation or a term-day checklist marked ready: Read ## Who's using this in ~/.codebuddy/plugins/config/legal-workflows/employment-legal/practice-profile.md. If the Role is Non-lawyer:

Terminating an employee has legal consequences — wrongful-termination, discrimination, retaliation, and wage-law claims all trace back to how this decision is structured. Have you reviewed this termination with an attorney? If yes, proceed. If no, here's a brief to bring to them:

• Employee, jurisdiction, reason, planned date
• Every high-risk flag the review surfaced (recent complaint, protected leave, protected class + timing, whistleblower, thin documentation, comparator, contract/handbook promise) — with detail
• Jurisdiction-specific findings (final pay, PTO, required notices, mass-layoff rules) and where they were cited from
• Severance/release analysis, including any OWBPA/older-worker-protection angles
• Open questions and what's unresolved
• What could go wrong (the claim theory this fact pattern supports)
• What to ask the attorney (is this a clean term; do we need more documentation first; does the release need specific language; do we need to stagger decisional units)

If you need to find an attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional: contact your professional regulator (state bar in the US, SRA/Bar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland/NI/Ireland/Canada/Australia, or your jurisdiction's equivalent) for a referral service. Employment is one of the practice areas where a short consult before the termination meeting consistently outvalues a post-termination claim defense.

Do not produce a "Clear to proceed" output past this gate without an explicit yes. A marked-DRAFT flagged for attorney review is fine.

Close with the next-steps decision tree

End with the next-steps decision tree per practice-profile.md ## Outputs. Customize the options to what this skill just produced — the five default branches (draft the X, escalate, get more facts, watch and wait, something else) are a starting point, not a lock-in. The tree is the output; the lawyer picks.

What this skill does not do

• Make the termination decision. It checks the decision.
• Have the conversation. The manager does that.
• State release or jurisdiction rules from memory — every rule is researched and cited at the time of review.
• Guarantee no lawsuit. It reduces the risk by catching the obvious problems.