The financial director was fired, and the claim was 990,000!Because a woman did not get the "Resignation Certificate", she claimed that she had missed the opportunity to work with a high salary, and sued her former employer in court, demanding compensation for losses and spiritual solace. The Chaoyang People's Court in Beijing heard the case and held that the woman's claims had no factual basis and rejected all of her claims. Netizen: What kind of logic is this?
Ms. Li, born in 79, has outstanding talents. At the age of 37, he joined a company through a friend's introduction as a financial director with a monthly salary of 590,000 yuan.
Unfortunately, in less than two years, the company found that she had serious violations, which brought huge losses to the company. The company decided to dismiss her and served a Notice of Dismissal.
To the company's surprise, Ms. Li took the offer and non-hire notices of the two companies to court and claimed 990,000 yuan.
In court, Ms. Li said:
First, the original company failed to provide the "Resignation Certificate", which was negligent.
Second, the evidence shows that the original company was at fault, resulting in her economic loss of 990,000 yuan, which should be compensated.
She made it clear that both companies wanted to hire her, but the original company did not issue a "resignation certificate", so the two companies issued non-employment notices respectively.
Ms. Li believes that if it were not for the negligence of the original company, she would have worked for a high-paying company. At present, no one is employed due to the lack of a "Resignation Certificate".
Is this claim justified?
Ms. Li asserted that the tort caused by negligence was established depending on whether the company was at fault, whether there was economic loss, and whether there was a causal relationship between the two.
The Civil Code stipulates that the perpetrator shall be responsible for the economic losses caused by negligence.
The key is that Ms. Li needs to provide evidence.
The law imposes a burden on the claimant to provide evidence. This is the basic rule of "whoever asserts, who adduces".
Specific to this case:
A company said that it did not hire Ms. Li because the salary was not agreed.
The second company claimed that the offer and non-employment notices were at the request of a friend, and it was clear that the company was unable to pay high salaries.
Although the original company did not mention the negligence of the Resignation Certificate, the economic loss alleged by Ms. Li did not actually exist, and even if it existed, there was no causal relationship with the negligence of the original company. Therefore, its claim is untenable.
In summary, the court of first instance rejected all of Ms. Li's claims. Dissatisfied, she appealed.
The court of second instance held that the two companies had clearly stated that the reason for not hiring was that they had not reached an agreement on the salary, and there was no causal relationship with whether the original company provided the "Resignation Certificate". Moreover, Ms. Li failed to continue to provide evidence to prove her economic losses, so she must bear the consequences of failing to provide evidence.
In summary, the court of second instance upheld the view of the first instance and upheld the original judgment.
Netizens have an opinion that Ms. Li may be retaliating, but the result is fruitless to pay the acceptance fees for the two cases!Or think she's fired. After two lawsuits, it is difficult for her to find a suitable job!What do you think?