Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Based on Jobs previous attitute towards employees I can see this being completely true. Hell his book showed how much of a dick he was and they probably just scratched the surface of the stuff he had done.

And to fire him right before they would have to pay him is a dick move plain and simple.

This guys lawyer can't be that stupid either. Go against the biggest company in the world with no case? yeah right
 
.... he was ultimately fired last December so that Apple could avoid paying him restricted stock that had been awarded in 2008, not because of any issues with his job performance.

Nothing new here. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people terminated, released or laid off just months away from retirement so the company doesn't have to pay. It's not unusual at all....especially in these difficult economic times when the job market is bad....companies abuse their employees, take benefits away, reduce pay, don't give raises, extend working hours.

It all changes when times are good again and the job market turns prosperous. That's when they start being nice....offering good pay, benefits, good hours....and start having a company policy of "family values" and "employee wellbeing".....

Then it will eventually change as times get tough....and they'll take all that stuff away...again abusing folks "because they can"....

It's a vicious cycle.....and a fact of life. Just gotta live through the bad times so you can enjoy the good times, rather than using the good times to recover from the bad times.
 
To be fair, the promise of a former CEO doesn't carry weight after he's gone and especially not after he's dead :(
 
A conversation...?

At least where I live, that's simply not legally binding. Where I live, yes, you can enter a so called verbal contract, but then you need to present everything in a certain formal manner, have agreement from both parties, and have a recording on file.

Though it's often confused in reporting, a verbal agreement ≠ oral agreement. The former, in a legal context, is an inexact term covering both written and spoken agreements, while the latter solely refers to agreements that are spoken, but not put to paper.

An oral agreement is as legally binding as a written agreement, but the stipulations of the agreement are, as expected, much more difficult to prove, in the event of a dispute, especially in the absence of witnesses.
 
Last edited:
Nothing new here. I can't tell you how many times I've seen people terminated, released or laid off just months away from retirement so the company doesn't have to pay. It's not unusual at all....especially in these difficult economic times when the job market is bad....companies abuse their employees, take benefits away, reduce pay, don't give raises, extend working hours.

It all changes when times are good again and the job market turns prosperous. That's when they start being nice....offering good pay, benefits, good hours....and start having a company policy of "family values" and "employee wellbeing".....

Then it will eventually change as times get tough....and they'll take all that stuff away...again abusing folks "because they can"....

It's a vicious cycle.....and a fact of life. Just gotta live through the bad times so you can enjoy the good times, rather than using the good times to recover from the bad times.

Is it "because they can" or "because they need to"? Because if its the former, they would do it all the time, not only during tough times.
 
hmm

I doubt Jobs would of put this in writing. This case will be thrown out pretty quickly. If this guy is as good as he thinks..why would he care..he should have plenty of job offers.
 
A conversation...?

At least where I live, that's simply not legally binding. Where I live, yes, you can enter a so called verbal contract, but then you need to present everything in a certain formal manner, have agreement from both parties, and have a recording on file.
In California, verbal agreements carry the same force as written contracts, but of course proving that there indeed was a verbal agreement and that there is not simply a misunderstanding is more difficult than with signed contracts.
 
I believe there are some precedents involving Steve and Apple on this... There may be a case here
 
Verbal contracts are legally binding. It's not the guys fault Jobs died. And a company like that would have it down somewhere. This guy wouldn't make such a case against Apple if he didn't have something substantial to base it on.

Nice to see the fanboys taking the side of the company and blast the guy who.. You know.. Made the keynotes announcing all of the greatest products ever. At least give the benefit of the doubt. Jobs would never have an idiot in the upper echelons.

If I'm wrong, fine.
 
It's going to be a very difficult case to prove if it was an oral agreement.

However it would seem that Apple's behaviour is not what one would expect from a good employer unless there were other reasons (ie disciplinary record), which actually could be an issue if Goodrich believed he had a job for life.

If, as Goodrich claimed, he wasn't fired for performance reasons then there is a valid case for unfair dismissal.
 
Sucks that they screwed him like that, but unless he has something in writing on something on tape I can't imagine this is going anywhere.

Just another reason why I am firm in my desire to stay in the wonderful world of small business.

Working with a small business doesn't protect you from getting screwed.

Actually it is easier to mess people over.
 
This is just a stunt to get some more money out of Apple. I hope he gets Lionel Hutz to represent him, because this is the most blatant case of wrongful termination, I can almost picture it... "Will I always have a job here Steve?" Steve- "Yes, over my dead body would anyone fire you!"

How would you know that? Maybe the guy was fired unjustly?
 
Verbal contracts are legally binding. It's not the guys fault Jobs died. And a company like that would have it down somewhere. This guy wouldn't make such a case against Apple if he didn't have something substantial to base it on.

Nice to see the fanboys taking the side of the company and blast the guy who.. You know.. Made the keynotes announcing all of the greatest products ever. At least give the benefit of the doubt. Jobs would never have an idiot in the upper echelons.

If I'm wrong, fine.

Agree, well said.
 
No one should ever promise lifetime job security, no one. If this did happen it is darn near impossible to prove now and I would be surprised if the CEO of a company would say something like that.

True, but this is Steve Jobs we're talking about here...
 
That's too bad that they let him go. It's a bit puzzling too...I always thought Apple was known (among other things, obviously) for it's great keynotes and public presentations (of course the individuals presenting have a lot to do with that, too). The guy had been doing his job and doing it exceptionally well for 14 years, then they let him to go so they don't have to pay him stock options that he was promised? Crappy. :/
 
Ummmm

"You think it's frivolous to sue for having your livelihood taken away when you were promised it wouldn't be? Especially Apple firing him for such a stupid and greedy reason as not having to pay his stock out. I'm sorry, but put the fanboyism aside and have some humanity."

Never mind any fanboy commentary - when you judge a case you listen to both sides - you have heard allegations from one side, you don't know if it is true, you immediately denounce the other side without giving them a chance to speak.

Apart from the word bias, the word stupid and nieve spring to mind...
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.