I suspect he does have it in writing, video or voice recording, etc.
Or he doesn't. I doubt Steve would allow himself to be recorded and in Cali (if not simply the US) that is the end of that. If it was in writing, Apple would have been slapped down by the state labor office and this wouldnt require a lawsuit.
I suspect he went to say office, they rejected his claim but were willing to declare it no ruling so he could go to court (required by the state and the courts) and thus he is.
Or if he has something in writing it doesn't say what he claims it does.
----------
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.
More like he would have put it in writing, he was to stupid about the ways of the law etc. if he thought this guy was so awesome he'd make sure the man was properly protected
----------
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. :/
he says. Doesn't make it true. He could have been a non contract employee who decided after Steve's death to start showing up for work late all the time. Or perhaps he was missing deadlines or his work quality dropped off and others were having to clean up his stuff to make it presentation worthy. Or maybe Tim wanted things done different and the man was giving push back because it wasn't Steve's style. Those kinds of things are performance issues that could lead to someone no longer being needed and of he was 'at will' without a defined and signed contract or proof if this oral one, it's totally legal.
That the guy was a year or less from a huge stock option doesn't really matter unless he can prove 100% that that was the only reason he was let go. And let's face it,with as much money as Apple has would that payout really hurt them. Probably not
----------
I understand Cook does presentations differently than Steve but if this is true Cook should have honored Steve's wishes and given the guy a different job within Apple.
For all we know, he tried that. Especially if part of the issue was personal style conflicts. Perhaps this gentleman felt he should be kept in his current role and said he'd rather leave, gambling on whether he would win. And he didn't. But he's not telling that part
----------
This "contract" does not have to be in writing under the statute of frauds because it conceivably could have lasted less than a year. However, that does not mean there are some other employment laws in CA that control in this situation.
The major one being that outside of a verified contract you are 'at will' and be dismissed for with no reason having to be given at any time. 'no longer needed'is valid. And unless you can prove something illegal like sexual harassment it will stick. Most companies will back up the dismissal with something like attendance policy violations to avoid suits but they don't have to. According to my sources that (in their opinion) twit Cory Moll started his Retail Worker Union stuff so he can always claim that is why Apple fired him, which would be illegal, so unless they can get him on something solid like stealing, he's untouchable.
Even in the TV industry my written contract has clauses that my position will be terminated with no further payment owned if the show I am working on is cancelled. The actors have the same with additional clauses that they can be written out at any time if the writers choose to take the show in a direction that no longer requires that persons character. And again unless one of us can prove that it was something else, like an actress refusing to blow the guest director, it will stick