Julius Caesar v. Rome
Tuesday, November 27, 2007 at 00:00
By Marcel Strigberger
HILARIOUS J: This is an action by the plaintiff, Julius Caesar, for damages for wrongful dismissal.
The plaintiff, born in the year 100 B.C. started working for the defendant in the year 69 after completing his studies, including a course in oratory, at Rhodes. While in his final year as a Rhodes scholar ,the plaintiff was approached by a personnel agent sent by the defendant to look for a candidate to fill the position of quaestor back in Rome.
The defendant stated that originally he had hoped to become a chartered accountant but since there was a glut of accountants on the market, he thought he would give it a whirl as a quaestor. He impressed his interviewer and he was hired.
One thing led to another and he soon was elected to the position of praetor and then military counsel. This latter position offered him many travel opportunities, taking him throughout Europe, Asia and Africa whose peoples he subdued on behalf of the defendant.
Between the years 49 and 45 there was a corporate shake-up in the defendant organization and after the smoke had cleared, the plaintiff was made dictator-in-chief, accountable only to the people of Rome.
Less than one year later, on the morning of the Ides of March, the plaintiff arrived at his office as ususal. He was met by a delegation of the defendant led by one Brutus, who asked him to resign immediately. When he protested the members of the delegation pelted him with rotten eggs. They then took out their sharpened stili and attacked the plaintiff. The plaintiff, rather surprised, ran out of his office without even clearing out his desk. He arrived home and when his wife Calpurnia asked him what had happened to his toga, he said to her, “How did you know about the Ides of March?”
The plaintiff now brings this action for wrongful dismissal.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff was dismissed for cause. The defendant led evidence that the plaintiff interrupted his conquests of Egypt by spending a number of days secluded with Queen Cleopatra.
The plaintiff’s personal chariot driver said that one morning when he picked Caesar up from the palace the plaintiff came out with a smile on his face and remarked, “Veni, vidi, vici.”
The court does not agree that this interlude constituted a just cause for dismissal. Julius Caesar was sent to Africa to conquer Egypt; Queen Cleopatra simply came with the territory.
There was also evidence that the plaintiff attempted to disrupt the defendant’s stability by tampering with the calendar, changing the name of the seventh month to July. The court sees nothing wrong with that. July sounds no worse than Pompuary. In any event, in this instance the court would apply the old maxim of Briton Law, namely, that the law does not concern itself with trifles.
Having found that the plaintiff was dismissed without just cause, it is incumbent upon the court to determine how much notice ought to have been given to the plaintiff.
Counsel for the defendant attempts to minimize the importance of the plaintiff’s position and suggest that notice of one week would have been sufficient. As the plaintiff was employed as a dictator for less than one year, counsel for the defendant submits that notice ought to be in accordance with Section 16 of the Employment Standards Act which requires one week’s notice, plus four per cent vacation pay.
The plaintiff, however, is a patrician and Section 2 of the Employment Standards Act reads, “This act applies only to plebeians, as patricians are not deemed to be working”.
The court must therefore look at the circumstances of the case to determine what is proper notice. The considerations include not only his length of service but the plaintiff’s age, the possibility of obtaining similar employment elsewhere and the plaintiff’s prominence in the industry.
On this latter point counsel for the plaintiff introduced an array of witnesses including leaders of barbaric groups who were former adversaries of the plaintiff.
One Frank, the Frank, said that the plaintiff and his legions laid siege to the Town of Frankville, on the east side of the Rhine River, looted the stores, raped the women and took back with them to Rome over 2,000 of its fiercest inhabitants to fight in the gladiator arenas.
The Frank described the plaintiff as being extremely efficient and thorough and very prominent amongst world leaders. On cross-examination, The Frank indicated that his evidence, favourable to the plaintiff, was in no way influenced by the fact that one of the 2,000 said warriors was his mother-in-law.
The defendant further pleads that the plaintiff had been unemployed for over a year and one-half now and that he has failed to mitigate his damages. On this point the plaintiff gave evidence that he continuously kept his eyes open for another position similar to the one from which he was dismissed.
He indicated that he had initially made applications with numerous employment agencies in Europe and Asia and that most recently he was on a two week trip to Africa where he left his resume with a number of headhunters.
One Claudius Drachus, a personnel consultant with Despots Unlimited, told the court that nations are not hiring dictators these days. The grim economy, especially high interest rates, are mostly to blame. It seems unlikely indeed that the plaintiff will ever find a job like his old job again. An actuarial expert, one Cinna the soothsayer, gave evidence that the likelihood of the plaintiff becoming a dictator again is about as high as the likelihood of Mount Vesuvius erupting. Cinna resides in the City of Pompeii.
Counsel for the defendant argues that the plaintiff can therefore undertake other work, perhaps return to accounting. The court does not agree. How can the plaintiff return to accounting? He has already crossed the Rubicon.
There is some suggestion however that the plaintiff is trying his hand at the culinary arts. It seems that he has recently developed a special salad which has become very popular. But it is too early to tell whether or not this endeavor will or will not take off.
In view of the plaintiff’s age, the importance of his position, the difficulty of finding similar employment elsewhere and the number of years in the service of the defendant, the court feels that six months’ notice is proper.
The defendant advised that the court should deduct from any judgement awarded the sum of twelve weeks’ worth of unemployment insurance received by the plaintiff.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits without deduction in favour of the defendant and cites the recent decision of Boarellus v. Flannigan, a barbarian, 47 Insurance Law Reporter of Rome, page 53.
Although that case involved a chariot accident, the principle is equally applicable. A plaintiff is entitled to be paid twice for a wrong committed by a defendant.
The plaintiff also claims damages for mental distress. Upon getting fired the plaintiff became very depressed.
The recent decision of Pilonius v. Marcellus the Slave Driver of Gaul 28 All-Roman Weekly Summaries, page 11, is authority for allowing a claim for damages for mental distress arising out of a wrongful dismissal. Under this head there will be judgement for 15,000 gold pieces.
Finally the plaintiff claims interest in pursuant to Section 38 the Judicaturus Act and the amendments thereto. This Act allows interest but only from the date upon which notice of the plaintiff’s claim was given to the defendant. The plaintiff claims interest from the date of the dismissal, being the Ides of March 44 B.C. claiming that notice was given then.
The evidence was that upon being stabbed a number of times with the stili, the plaintiff said, “ I’ll sue you bastards. Et tu brute”. The court finds that this notice is sufficient. It is more reliable than notice by registered mail.
The plaintiff will also have his legal costs on total indemnity scale as in any event the government will be paying for everything.
Judgment accordingly.
HILARIOUS J: This is an action by the plaintiff, Julius Caesar, for damages for wrongful dismissal.
The plaintiff, born in the year 100 B.C. started working for the defendant in the year 69 after completing his studies, including a course in oratory, at Rhodes. While in his final year as a Rhodes scholar ,the plaintiff was approached by a personnel agent sent by the defendant to look for a candidate to fill the position of quaestor back in Rome.
The defendant stated that originally he had hoped to become a chartered accountant but since there was a glut of accountants on the market, he thought he would give it a whirl as a quaestor. He impressed his interviewer and he was hired.
One thing led to another and he soon was elected to the position of praetor and then military counsel. This latter position offered him many travel opportunities, taking him throughout Europe, Asia and Africa whose peoples he subdued on behalf of the defendant.
Between the years 49 and 45 there was a corporate shake-up in the defendant organization and after the smoke had cleared, the plaintiff was made dictator-in-chief, accountable only to the people of Rome.
Less than one year later, on the morning of the Ides of March, the plaintiff arrived at his office as ususal. He was met by a delegation of the defendant led by one Brutus, who asked him to resign immediately. When he protested the members of the delegation pelted him with rotten eggs. They then took out their sharpened stili and attacked the plaintiff. The plaintiff, rather surprised, ran out of his office without even clearing out his desk. He arrived home and when his wife Calpurnia asked him what had happened to his toga, he said to her, “How did you know about the Ides of March?”
The plaintiff now brings this action for wrongful dismissal.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff was dismissed for cause. The defendant led evidence that the plaintiff interrupted his conquests of Egypt by spending a number of days secluded with Queen Cleopatra.
The plaintiff’s personal chariot driver said that one morning when he picked Caesar up from the palace the plaintiff came out with a smile on his face and remarked, “Veni, vidi, vici.”
The court does not agree that this interlude constituted a just cause for dismissal. Julius Caesar was sent to Africa to conquer Egypt; Queen Cleopatra simply came with the territory.
There was also evidence that the plaintiff attempted to disrupt the defendant’s stability by tampering with the calendar, changing the name of the seventh month to July. The court sees nothing wrong with that. July sounds no worse than Pompuary. In any event, in this instance the court would apply the old maxim of Briton Law, namely, that the law does not concern itself with trifles.
Having found that the plaintiff was dismissed without just cause, it is incumbent upon the court to determine how much notice ought to have been given to the plaintiff.
Counsel for the defendant attempts to minimize the importance of the plaintiff’s position and suggest that notice of one week would have been sufficient. As the plaintiff was employed as a dictator for less than one year, counsel for the defendant submits that notice ought to be in accordance with Section 16 of the Employment Standards Act which requires one week’s notice, plus four per cent vacation pay.
The plaintiff, however, is a patrician and Section 2 of the Employment Standards Act reads, “This act applies only to plebeians, as patricians are not deemed to be working”.
The court must therefore look at the circumstances of the case to determine what is proper notice. The considerations include not only his length of service but the plaintiff’s age, the possibility of obtaining similar employment elsewhere and the plaintiff’s prominence in the industry.
On this latter point counsel for the plaintiff introduced an array of witnesses including leaders of barbaric groups who were former adversaries of the plaintiff.
One Frank, the Frank, said that the plaintiff and his legions laid siege to the Town of Frankville, on the east side of the Rhine River, looted the stores, raped the women and took back with them to Rome over 2,000 of its fiercest inhabitants to fight in the gladiator arenas.
The Frank described the plaintiff as being extremely efficient and thorough and very prominent amongst world leaders. On cross-examination, The Frank indicated that his evidence, favourable to the plaintiff, was in no way influenced by the fact that one of the 2,000 said warriors was his mother-in-law.
The defendant further pleads that the plaintiff had been unemployed for over a year and one-half now and that he has failed to mitigate his damages. On this point the plaintiff gave evidence that he continuously kept his eyes open for another position similar to the one from which he was dismissed.
He indicated that he had initially made applications with numerous employment agencies in Europe and Asia and that most recently he was on a two week trip to Africa where he left his resume with a number of headhunters.
One Claudius Drachus, a personnel consultant with Despots Unlimited, told the court that nations are not hiring dictators these days. The grim economy, especially high interest rates, are mostly to blame. It seems unlikely indeed that the plaintiff will ever find a job like his old job again. An actuarial expert, one Cinna the soothsayer, gave evidence that the likelihood of the plaintiff becoming a dictator again is about as high as the likelihood of Mount Vesuvius erupting. Cinna resides in the City of Pompeii.
Counsel for the defendant argues that the plaintiff can therefore undertake other work, perhaps return to accounting. The court does not agree. How can the plaintiff return to accounting? He has already crossed the Rubicon.
There is some suggestion however that the plaintiff is trying his hand at the culinary arts. It seems that he has recently developed a special salad which has become very popular. But it is too early to tell whether or not this endeavor will or will not take off.
In view of the plaintiff’s age, the importance of his position, the difficulty of finding similar employment elsewhere and the number of years in the service of the defendant, the court feels that six months’ notice is proper.
The defendant advised that the court should deduct from any judgement awarded the sum of twelve weeks’ worth of unemployment insurance received by the plaintiff.
Counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff is entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits without deduction in favour of the defendant and cites the recent decision of Boarellus v. Flannigan, a barbarian, 47 Insurance Law Reporter of Rome, page 53.
Although that case involved a chariot accident, the principle is equally applicable. A plaintiff is entitled to be paid twice for a wrong committed by a defendant.
The plaintiff also claims damages for mental distress. Upon getting fired the plaintiff became very depressed.
The recent decision of Pilonius v. Marcellus the Slave Driver of Gaul 28 All-Roman Weekly Summaries, page 11, is authority for allowing a claim for damages for mental distress arising out of a wrongful dismissal. Under this head there will be judgement for 15,000 gold pieces.
Finally the plaintiff claims interest in pursuant to Section 38 the Judicaturus Act and the amendments thereto. This Act allows interest but only from the date upon which notice of the plaintiff’s claim was given to the defendant. The plaintiff claims interest from the date of the dismissal, being the Ides of March 44 B.C. claiming that notice was given then.
The evidence was that upon being stabbed a number of times with the stili, the plaintiff said, “ I’ll sue you bastards. Et tu brute”. The court finds that this notice is sufficient. It is more reliable than notice by registered mail.
The plaintiff will also have his legal costs on total indemnity scale as in any event the government will be paying for everything.
Judgment accordingly.
______________
© 2007 Marcel Strigberger. This article CANNOT be copied or reproduced in any way without the expressed written consent of the Author.
Add a comment