/termination-review

name: termination-review
description: >
  Termination review — high-risk flag detection, severance + release, and
  final pay timing by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction-specific rules and release
  consideration periods are researched per review, not stored. Use when the
  user says "reviewing a termination", "can we fire this person", "term
  review", or describes a termination scenario.
argument-hint: "[describe the termination, or attach documentation]"

/termination-review

1. Load `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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 CLAUDE.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 `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/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

`~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md` → termination review triggers, high-risk flags, standard severance, jurisdiction table.

Output header

Prepend the work-product header from `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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 `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md`. Default set:

| Flag | Why it's high-risk | Check | |---|---|---| | **Recent complaint** | Retaliation claim | Has this employee filed any complaint (HR, ethics hotline, regulatory) recently? | | **Protected leave** | Leave-law interference/retaliation | Currently on or recently returned from protected leave (FMLA/state equivalents, disability, parental, military)? | | **Protected class + timing** | Discrimination claim | Protected class AND recently disclosed/visible (pregnancy announcement, religious accommodation request, disability disclosure)? | | **Whistleblower** | Federal and state whistleblower statutes | Has this employee raised concerns about illegality, safety, fraud? | | **Thin documentation** | "Why now?" problem | For performance terms: is there a PIP, written warnings, documented feedback? Or did this come out of nowhere? | | **Comparator problem** | Disparate treatment | Is someone else doing the same thing and not being terminated? | | **Contract/handbook promise** | Breach | Does the offer letter, handbook, or any writing promise a process that isn't being followed? | | **Exempt misclassification** | FLSA + state wage claim with liquidated damages | See the classification check below. Fires on state + classification + title. |

**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 `~/.claude/plugins/config/claude-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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 > `/employment-legal:wage-hour-qa` for a classification check — a misclassified > employee who's terminated has a ready-made FLSA 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 `/employment-legal:wage-hour-qa` for the actual duties-and-salary test.

**If a back-pay number is being computed as part of this review (severance modeling, settlement posture, exposure estimate), do NOT compute it