The guy was told agree to a new contract (breaking old one) or you are terminated. He did not agree and was terminated. How can that be misconstrued?
Perhaps the employee misunderstood his old contract to begin with? Again, presence of a suit and settlement do NOT necessarily signify guilt on the part of the person PAYING the settlement!
Another poster summed this up better than I did, and it appears that he is more familiar with this particular case than I. My comments are meant more in general than in regards to that specific case...
I’m just sensing a lot of anger emanating from your posts, which I understand completely. However, even IF AIG completely breached this former employee’s contract WITH INTENT to do so, it has NOTHING TO DO with these bonuses, or the actions taken by Congress in relation to them.
Again, don’t get me wrong. There is something definitely rotten, and it stinks to high heaven — investigation into the links between some executives and Congress are DEFINITELY WARRANTED here. And, other improprieties SHOULD be investigated as well. I merely wanted to caution that breach of one contract does NOT signify a go-ahead of breaching OTHER contracts involving OTHER people... It’s that old cliche that fits; “Two wrongs don’t make a right”