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.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
A direct command skips the review prompt. Inspect the source before running it.
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.
Codex v1 local-input note: This migrated skill supports local files and pasted text by default. References to Drive, CLM IDs, Slack, Westlaw, iManage, Ironclad, eDiscovery, dockets, or other remote systems require a separately configured Codex connector/MCP server. When a connector is unavailable, ask for a local export, local file path, or pasted excerpts. If config/local/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.md is missing, ask the user to run the relevant cold-start-interview or customize skill and copy from config/templates/codex-for-legal/<practice>/CLAUDE.md.
Final pay timing per employee's jurisdiction. Severance + release if applicable.
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 config/local/codex-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.
Prepend the work-product header from config/local/codex-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md → ## Outputs (it differs by user role — see ). Match the memo format from seed term memos referenced in that config where one exists. The work-product header is always first.
## Who's using this
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 config/local/codex-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:
The employee works in a state with a high exempt salary threshold — CA,
NY, WA, CO, AK (and any other state listed in
config/local/codex-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.md →
## Wage & hour → Known classification risk areas as a high-threshold
state) — AND
The employee is classified exempt (salaried, no overtime) — AND
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 in this
skill. Route to wage-hour-qa → Step 2a and use its regular-rate
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 config/local/codex-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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: [Westlaw (connector optional; not enabled in v1)], [CourtListener (connector optional; not enabled in v1)], 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 config/local/codex-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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 — Westlaw (connector optional; not enabled in v1), CourtListener (connector optional; not enabled in v1), or any firm-configured research MCP. Collect this into the reviewer note per CLAUDE.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 config/local/codex-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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 config/local/codex-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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 config/local/codex-for-legal/employment-legal/CLAUDE.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 CLAUDE.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.
