I agree with your legal interpretation but this Board is a rubber stamp for an incompetent, spiteful fool! What they think is “cause” and what the law views it as are miles apart.
I stated before, and labor law is in my wheelhouse, unless they can show fraud or a direct violation of a standing policy, this would be a termination for performance! Even “not delivering” on a timeline is NOT for cause! Exhibit A will be Nader’s past performance, which would be considered precedent despite what any policy or contract states. As a lawyer, I think you would agree with that.
If Pestell is gone for an easily probable reason, he wouldn’t sully his reputation! My money is on Pestell coming out with the advantage- whether that is a termination based on something other than cause, a rescinded termination in exchange for voluntary resignation and he keeps all his stock as if he were with the company.
Judges tend to side with the employee in these cases and the burden is on company to prove their position. It’s not up to Pestell...he just needs to refute Nader’s charges. After listening to that moron on CC’s and video, any seasoned attorney will eat his lunch on cross!!!
His last words might be: “your G-Damn I ordered the Code Red!!!”
Grip
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
