[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M718F0S12Z2RWNKEYZN4DE8Y":3,"skill-same:01M718F0S12Z2RWNKEYZN4DE8Y":66},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":18,"publishedAt":37,"linkOnly":38,"markdownContent":39,"markdownBody":40,"frontMatter":41,"refName":44,"commitSha":45,"skillDirectory":46,"forksCount":47,"repositoryHtmlUrl":48,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":49,"ownerBlogUrl":50,"ownerDescription":6,"updatedAt":51,"install":52,"resources":65},"01M718F0S12Z2RWNKEYZN4DE8Y","termination-review",null,"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.","anthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal","anthropics","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F76263028?v=4","01M697XGDPXJAVQ8391V2BCYTE","Anthropic","01M7189QY7HXHMC9BW4MFHPZ6H",9987,"Apache-2.0","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Femployment-legal\u002Fskills\u002Ftermination-review\u002FSKILL.md",[],[19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36],"termination review","review","user","describe","detection","scenario","person","release","high","attach","documentation","can","when","pay","Rules","use","timing","risk","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: termination-review\ndescription: >\n  Termination review — high-risk flag detection, severance + release, and\n  final pay timing by jurisdiction. Jurisdiction-specific rules and release\n  consideration periods are researched per review, not stored. Use when the\n  user says \"reviewing a termination\", \"can we fire this person\", \"term\n  review\", or describes a termination scenario.\nargument-hint: \"[describe the termination, or attach documentation]\"\n---\n\n# \u002Ftermination-review\n\n1. Load `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → termination review triggers, high-risk flags, severance practice, jurisdiction rules.\n2. Use the workflow below.\n3. Walk the checklist. Check every high-risk flag.\n4. Final pay timing per employee's jurisdiction. Severance + release if applicable.\n5. If any high-risk flag fires: escalate per table, don't proceed without sign-off.\n\n---\n\n## Matter context\n\n**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 `\u002Femployment-legal:matter-workspace switch \u003Cslug>` or say `practice-level`.\" Load the active matter's `matter.md` for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002Fmatters\u002F\u003Cmatter-slug>\u002F`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.\n\n---\n\n## Purpose\n\nMost terminations are fine. A few are lawsuits waiting to happen. This skill\nruns the checklist that catches the second kind before the decision is final.\nThe skill does not state the law — every jurisdiction-specific rule and\nrelease-period requirement is researched and cited at the time of review.\n\n## Load context\n\n`~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → termination review triggers, high-risk flags, standard severance,\njurisdiction table.\n\n## Output header\n\nPrepend the work-product header from `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → `## Outputs` (it differs by user role — see `## Who's using this`). Match the memo format from seed term memos referenced in that config where one exists. The work-product header is always first.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: The basic facts\n\n- Employee name (or role if staying abstract)\n- Jurisdiction (where they work)\n- Reason for termination (performance, misconduct, RIF, position elimination)\n- How long employed\n- Age (relevant to release requirements for older-worker protections)\n- Whether any other employees are being terminated as part of the same\n  decisional unit or program (relevant to group-termination release rules)\n- When is the planned term date\n\n### Step 2: High-risk flag scan\n\nThis is the most important step. Check every flag from `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md`. Default\nset:\n\n| Flag | Why it's high-risk | Check |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Recent complaint** | Retaliation claim | Has this employee filed any complaint (HR, ethics hotline, regulatory) recently? |\n| **Protected leave** | Leave-law interference\u002Fretaliation | Currently on or recently returned from protected leave (FMLA\u002Fstate equivalents, disability, parental, military)? |\n| **Protected class + timing** | Discrimination claim | Protected class AND recently disclosed\u002Fvisible (pregnancy announcement, religious accommodation request, disability disclosure)? |\n| **Whistleblower** | Federal and state whistleblower statutes | Has this employee raised concerns about illegality, safety, fraud? |\n| **Thin documentation** | \"Why now?\" problem | For performance terms: is there a PIP, written warnings, documented feedback? Or did this come out of nowhere? |\n| **Comparator problem** | Disparate treatment | Is someone else doing the same thing and not being terminated? |\n| **Contract\u002Fhandbook promise** | Breach | Does the offer letter, handbook, or any writing promise a process that isn't being followed? |\n| **Exempt misclassification** | FLSA + state wage claim with liquidated damages | See the classification check below. Fires on state + classification + title. |\n\n**Exempt\u002Fnon-exempt classification flag.** Fire this flag when ALL of the\nfollowing are true:\n\n1. The employee works in a state with a high exempt salary threshold — **CA,\n   NY, WA, CO, AK** (and any other state listed in\n   `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` →\n   `## Wage & hour` → Known classification risk areas as a high-threshold\n   state) — **AND**\n2. The employee is classified **exempt** (salaried, no overtime) — **AND**\n3. The employee's title contains **\"supervisor,\" \"lead,\" \"coordinator,\"\n   \"analyst,\" \"administrator,\"** or **\"specialist\"** (case-insensitive, and\n   any equivalent-scope title the practice profile flags as risky).\n\nWhen all three fire, emit:\n\n> 🔴 **Potential exempt misclassification** — [title] earning $[X] in\n> [state]. The exempt salary threshold in [state] is approximately $[Y]\n> `[model knowledge — verify]`. Before termination, route to\n> `\u002Femployment-legal:wage-hour-qa` for a classification check — a misclassified\n> employee who's terminated has a ready-made FLSA and state-wage claim with\n> liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and (in CA) PAGA exposure, which\n> the separation agreement may not be able to release cleanly. A terminated\n> plaintiff with unpaid-OT exposure is the most litigated wage-and-hour\n> fact pattern in these states.\n\nDo not suppress this flag because the title \"looks managerial\" — the whole\npremise of the misclassification claim is that titles lie. Route to\n`\u002Femployment-legal:wage-hour-qa` for the actual duties-and-salary test.\n\n**If a back-pay number is being computed as part of this review (severance\nmodeling, settlement posture, exposure estimate), do NOT compute it in this\nskill.** Route to `wage-hour-qa` → Step 2a and use its regular-rate\nscaffold: §207(e) inclusions (non-discretionary bonuses, commissions,\nshift diffs) in the regular rate, 0.5× premium when straight time was\nalready paid for OT hours (else 1.5×), liquidated damages under §216(b),\nand 2-year \u002F 3-year willful SOL under §255(a). Every back-pay number\ncarries `[verify — consult wage-and-hour counsel before asserting or\npaying]`. A clean-looking wrong number here is the specific failure mode\nthis scaffold prevents.\n\n**Any flag fires → escalate per `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` before the term proceeds.** Not\nafter. Before.\n\n### Step 3: Jurisdiction-specific requirements\n\n> **Research the applicable rules for the employee's jurisdiction before\n> finalizing the plan.** Specifically:\n>\n> - Final-pay timing — this varies widely by state and often depends on\n>   whether the employee was terminated or resigned. Research the currently\n>   operative rule, including any waiting-time or late-pay penalties.\n> - Accrued-PTO payout — research whether the jurisdiction requires payout,\n>   and any interaction with accrual-cap or use-it-or-lose-it policies.\n> - Required notices — research any jurisdiction-specific notices required at\n>   termination (e.g., state unemployment, continuation-coverage notices\n>   beyond federal COBRA, benefits continuation).\n> - Mass-layoff \u002F plant-closing notices — research federal WARN Act and any\n>   state \"mini-WARN\" or local ordinance that may apply if this is part of a\n>   larger reduction. Coverage thresholds and notice periods differ.\n>\n> Cite primary sources. Verify currency.\n>\n> **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 \u002F 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.\n>\n> **Source attribution.** Tag every citation in the plan — final-pay rule, PTO rule, notices, WARN \u002F mini-WARN, OWBPA consideration periods, state release restrictions — with where it came from: `[Westlaw]`, `[CourtListener]`, 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.\n\n### Step 4: Severance and release\n\nPer `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → standard severance:\n\n- Is severance being offered? Per formula or discretionary?\n- Release required? (Usually yes if paying severance — that's the\n  consideration.)\n\n> **Research the applicable release-consideration rules.** If the employee is\n> 40 or over, federal law (OWBPA) imposes specific requirements that affect\n> the consideration period, revocation period, required advisements, and —\n> for group terminations — required decisional-unit disclosures. The specific\n> consideration period differs between an individual termination, a group\n> RIF, and a group exit incentive; the rule also depends on the employee's\n> age and the number of employees affected. Do not state the day count from\n> memory — research the currently operative rule for the specific situation\n> and cite primary sources. Also research any state-law analogs or parallel\n> release requirements. Verify currency.\n\nSeparately, consider whether any of the following apply to the release:\n- State-specific waiver restrictions (some states limit what can be released\n  or require specific language).\n- Federal or state restrictions on non-disclosure or non-disparagement\n  clauses that relate to sexual harassment, discrimination, or other\n  protected categories.\n- Separation-agreement rules on NLRA-protected activity.\n\n### Step 5: Documentation check\n\nFor performance terminations especially:\n\n- Is there a paper trail? Written warnings, PIP, feedback docs?\n- Does the paper trail tell a consistent story?\n- Is there anything in writing that contradicts the reason (recent positive\n  review, bonus, promotion)?\n\nThe \"why now\" question: if this person has been underperforming for a year,\nwhat changed? The answer should be documented.\n\n## Output\n\n> **Research-connector pre-flight.** Before emitting the memo, check whether a legal research connector is reachable for this session — Westlaw, CourtListener, 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\u002Findividual distinctions, state-specific NDA \u002F 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.\n\n> **Jurisdiction assumption.** This review assumes the employee's jurisdiction as stated in Step 1 and any defaults from `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.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.\n\nMatch the memo format from seed term memos referenced in `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md`. If none:\n\n```markdown\n[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]\n\n## Termination Review: [Role\u002FName] — [Date]\n\n**Jurisdiction:** [State]\n**Reason:** [Performance \u002F Misconduct \u002F RIF \u002F Elimination]\n**Planned date:** [Date]\n\n---\n\n### Bottom line\n\n[Can you proceed \u002F Need to fix X first \u002F Stop — one-sentence why]\n\n---\n\n### High-risk flags\n\n[Every flag from Step 2. ✅ Clear or 🔴 FLAG with detail.]\n\n**Escalation:** [None needed | Escalate to [name] before proceeding — [which flag]]\n\n---\n\n### Jurisdiction requirements ([State])\n\n- Final pay: [researched rule and cite; state whether PTO is included per the\n  researched rule and any team policy]\n- Required notices: [list, each researched and cited]\n- Mass-layoff notice (if applicable): [researched rule and cite]\n\n---\n\n### Severance and release\n\n- Severance: [amount per formula \u002F none]\n- Release: [required \u002F not — if required, research and apply the\n  consideration-period, revocation-period, advisement, and (for groups)\n  decisional-unit-disclosure requirements that govern this specific\n  situation; cite primary sources and verify currency]\n- [Any state-law release rules or non-disclosure\u002Fnon-disparagement\n  restrictions that apply]\n\n---\n\n### Documentation\n\n[Assessment of paper trail. Gaps flagged.]\n\n---\n\n### Go \u002F No-go\n\n[Clear to proceed | Proceed with changes below | Hold — escalation pending]\n\n### Checklist for term day\n\n- [ ] Final paycheck ready, correct amount, delivered per researched rule\n- [ ] Continuation-coverage notices (COBRA \u002F state analogs) prepared\n- [ ] [State] unemployment notice prepared\n- [ ] Severance agreement (if applicable) with the consideration period\n      required for this specific situation\n- [ ] Return of property \u002F access cutoff coordinated\n- [ ] [etc.]\n```\n\n## Consequential-action gate (terminate an employee)\n\n**Before producing a \"Go\" recommendation or a term-day checklist marked ready:** Read `## Who's using this` in `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md`. If the Role is **Non-lawyer**:\n\n> 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:\n>\n> - Employee, jurisdiction, reason, planned date\n> - Every high-risk flag the review surfaced (recent complaint, protected leave, protected class + timing, whistleblower, thin documentation, comparator, contract\u002Fhandbook promise) — with detail\n> - Jurisdiction-specific findings (final pay, PTO, required notices, mass-layoff rules) and where they were cited from\n> - Severance\u002Frelease analysis, including any OWBPA\u002Folder-worker-protection angles\n> - Open questions and what's unresolved\n> - What could go wrong (the claim theory this fact pattern supports)\n> - 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)\n>\n> If you need to find an attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional: contact your professional regulator (state bar in the US, SRA\u002FBar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland\u002FNI\u002FIreland\u002FCanada\u002FAustralia, 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.\n\nDo not produce a \"Clear to proceed\" output past this gate without an explicit yes. A marked-DRAFT flagged for attorney review is fine.\n\n---\n\n## Close with the next-steps decision tree\n\nEnd 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.\n\n## What this skill does not do\n\n- Make the termination decision. It checks the decision.\n- Have the conversation. The manager does that.\n- State release or jurisdiction rules from memory — every rule is researched\n  and cited at the time of review.\n- Guarantee no lawsuit. It reduces the risk by catching the obvious problems.\n","# \u002Ftermination-review\n\n1. Load `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → termination review triggers, high-risk flags, severance practice, jurisdiction rules.\n2. Use the workflow below.\n3. Walk the checklist. Check every high-risk flag.\n4. Final pay timing per employee's jurisdiction. Severance + release if applicable.\n5. If any high-risk flag fires: escalate per table, don't proceed without sign-off.\n\n---\n\n## Matter context\n\n**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 `\u002Femployment-legal:matter-workspace switch \u003Cslug>` or say `practice-level`.\" Load the active matter's `matter.md` for matter-specific context and overrides. Write outputs to the matter folder at `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002Fmatters\u002F\u003Cmatter-slug>\u002F`. Never read another matter's files unless `Cross-matter context` is `on`.\n\n---\n\n## Purpose\n\nMost terminations are fine. A few are lawsuits waiting to happen. This skill\nruns the checklist that catches the second kind before the decision is final.\nThe skill does not state the law — every jurisdiction-specific rule and\nrelease-period requirement is researched and cited at the time of review.\n\n## Load context\n\n`~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → termination review triggers, high-risk flags, standard severance,\njurisdiction table.\n\n## Output header\n\nPrepend the work-product header from `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → `## Outputs` (it differs by user role — see `## Who's using this`). Match the memo format from seed term memos referenced in that config where one exists. The work-product header is always first.\n\n## Workflow\n\n### Step 1: The basic facts\n\n- Employee name (or role if staying abstract)\n- Jurisdiction (where they work)\n- Reason for termination (performance, misconduct, RIF, position elimination)\n- How long employed\n- Age (relevant to release requirements for older-worker protections)\n- Whether any other employees are being terminated as part of the same\n  decisional unit or program (relevant to group-termination release rules)\n- When is the planned term date\n\n### Step 2: High-risk flag scan\n\nThis is the most important step. Check every flag from `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md`. Default\nset:\n\n| Flag | Why it's high-risk | Check |\n|---|---|---|\n| **Recent complaint** | Retaliation claim | Has this employee filed any complaint (HR, ethics hotline, regulatory) recently? |\n| **Protected leave** | Leave-law interference\u002Fretaliation | Currently on or recently returned from protected leave (FMLA\u002Fstate equivalents, disability, parental, military)? |\n| **Protected class + timing** | Discrimination claim | Protected class AND recently disclosed\u002Fvisible (pregnancy announcement, religious accommodation request, disability disclosure)? |\n| **Whistleblower** | Federal and state whistleblower statutes | Has this employee raised concerns about illegality, safety, fraud? |\n| **Thin documentation** | \"Why now?\" problem | For performance terms: is there a PIP, written warnings, documented feedback? Or did this come out of nowhere? |\n| **Comparator problem** | Disparate treatment | Is someone else doing the same thing and not being terminated? |\n| **Contract\u002Fhandbook promise** | Breach | Does the offer letter, handbook, or any writing promise a process that isn't being followed? |\n| **Exempt misclassification** | FLSA + state wage claim with liquidated damages | See the classification check below. Fires on state + classification + title. |\n\n**Exempt\u002Fnon-exempt classification flag.** Fire this flag when ALL of the\nfollowing are true:\n\n1. The employee works in a state with a high exempt salary threshold — **CA,\n   NY, WA, CO, AK** (and any other state listed in\n   `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` →\n   `## Wage & hour` → Known classification risk areas as a high-threshold\n   state) — **AND**\n2. The employee is classified **exempt** (salaried, no overtime) — **AND**\n3. The employee's title contains **\"supervisor,\" \"lead,\" \"coordinator,\"\n   \"analyst,\" \"administrator,\"** or **\"specialist\"** (case-insensitive, and\n   any equivalent-scope title the practice profile flags as risky).\n\nWhen all three fire, emit:\n\n> 🔴 **Potential exempt misclassification** — [title] earning $[X] in\n> [state]. The exempt salary threshold in [state] is approximately $[Y]\n> `[model knowledge — verify]`. Before termination, route to\n> `\u002Femployment-legal:wage-hour-qa` for a classification check — a misclassified\n> employee who's terminated has a ready-made FLSA and state-wage claim with\n> liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and (in CA) PAGA exposure, which\n> the separation agreement may not be able to release cleanly. A terminated\n> plaintiff with unpaid-OT exposure is the most litigated wage-and-hour\n> fact pattern in these states.\n\nDo not suppress this flag because the title \"looks managerial\" — the whole\npremise of the misclassification claim is that titles lie. Route to\n`\u002Femployment-legal:wage-hour-qa` for the actual duties-and-salary test.\n\n**If a back-pay number is being computed as part of this review (severance\nmodeling, settlement posture, exposure estimate), do NOT compute it in this\nskill.** Route to `wage-hour-qa` → Step 2a and use its regular-rate\nscaffold: §207(e) inclusions (non-discretionary bonuses, commissions,\nshift diffs) in the regular rate, 0.5× premium when straight time was\nalready paid for OT hours (else 1.5×), liquidated damages under §216(b),\nand 2-year \u002F 3-year willful SOL under §255(a). Every back-pay number\ncarries `[verify — consult wage-and-hour counsel before asserting or\npaying]`. A clean-looking wrong number here is the specific failure mode\nthis scaffold prevents.\n\n**Any flag fires → escalate per `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` before the term proceeds.** Not\nafter. Before.\n\n### Step 3: Jurisdiction-specific requirements\n\n> **Research the applicable rules for the employee's jurisdiction before\n> finalizing the plan.** Specifically:\n>\n> - Final-pay timing — this varies widely by state and often depends on\n>   whether the employee was terminated or resigned. Research the currently\n>   operative rule, including any waiting-time or late-pay penalties.\n> - Accrued-PTO payout — research whether the jurisdiction requires payout,\n>   and any interaction with accrual-cap or use-it-or-lose-it policies.\n> - Required notices — research any jurisdiction-specific notices required at\n>   termination (e.g., state unemployment, continuation-coverage notices\n>   beyond federal COBRA, benefits continuation).\n> - Mass-layoff \u002F plant-closing notices — research federal WARN Act and any\n>   state \"mini-WARN\" or local ordinance that may apply if this is part of a\n>   larger reduction. Coverage thresholds and notice periods differ.\n>\n> Cite primary sources. Verify currency.\n>\n> **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 \u002F 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.\n>\n> **Source attribution.** Tag every citation in the plan — final-pay rule, PTO rule, notices, WARN \u002F mini-WARN, OWBPA consideration periods, state release restrictions — with where it came from: `[Westlaw]`, `[CourtListener]`, 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.\n\n### Step 4: Severance and release\n\nPer `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md` → standard severance:\n\n- Is severance being offered? Per formula or discretionary?\n- Release required? (Usually yes if paying severance — that's the\n  consideration.)\n\n> **Research the applicable release-consideration rules.** If the employee is\n> 40 or over, federal law (OWBPA) imposes specific requirements that affect\n> the consideration period, revocation period, required advisements, and —\n> for group terminations — required decisional-unit disclosures. The specific\n> consideration period differs between an individual termination, a group\n> RIF, and a group exit incentive; the rule also depends on the employee's\n> age and the number of employees affected. Do not state the day count from\n> memory — research the currently operative rule for the specific situation\n> and cite primary sources. Also research any state-law analogs or parallel\n> release requirements. Verify currency.\n\nSeparately, consider whether any of the following apply to the release:\n- State-specific waiver restrictions (some states limit what can be released\n  or require specific language).\n- Federal or state restrictions on non-disclosure or non-disparagement\n  clauses that relate to sexual harassment, discrimination, or other\n  protected categories.\n- Separation-agreement rules on NLRA-protected activity.\n\n### Step 5: Documentation check\n\nFor performance terminations especially:\n\n- Is there a paper trail? Written warnings, PIP, feedback docs?\n- Does the paper trail tell a consistent story?\n- Is there anything in writing that contradicts the reason (recent positive\n  review, bonus, promotion)?\n\nThe \"why now\" question: if this person has been underperforming for a year,\nwhat changed? The answer should be documented.\n\n## Output\n\n> **Research-connector pre-flight.** Before emitting the memo, check whether a legal research connector is reachable for this session — Westlaw, CourtListener, 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\u002Findividual distinctions, state-specific NDA \u002F 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.\n\n> **Jurisdiction assumption.** This review assumes the employee's jurisdiction as stated in Step 1 and any defaults from `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.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.\n\nMatch the memo format from seed term memos referenced in `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md`. If none:\n\n```markdown\n[WORK-PRODUCT HEADER — per plugin config ## Outputs — differs by role; see `## Who's using this`]\n\n## Termination Review: [Role\u002FName] — [Date]\n\n**Jurisdiction:** [State]\n**Reason:** [Performance \u002F Misconduct \u002F RIF \u002F Elimination]\n**Planned date:** [Date]\n\n---\n\n### Bottom line\n\n[Can you proceed \u002F Need to fix X first \u002F Stop — one-sentence why]\n\n---\n\n### High-risk flags\n\n[Every flag from Step 2. ✅ Clear or 🔴 FLAG with detail.]\n\n**Escalation:** [None needed | Escalate to [name] before proceeding — [which flag]]\n\n---\n\n### Jurisdiction requirements ([State])\n\n- Final pay: [researched rule and cite; state whether PTO is included per the\n  researched rule and any team policy]\n- Required notices: [list, each researched and cited]\n- Mass-layoff notice (if applicable): [researched rule and cite]\n\n---\n\n### Severance and release\n\n- Severance: [amount per formula \u002F none]\n- Release: [required \u002F not — if required, research and apply the\n  consideration-period, revocation-period, advisement, and (for groups)\n  decisional-unit-disclosure requirements that govern this specific\n  situation; cite primary sources and verify currency]\n- [Any state-law release rules or non-disclosure\u002Fnon-disparagement\n  restrictions that apply]\n\n---\n\n### Documentation\n\n[Assessment of paper trail. Gaps flagged.]\n\n---\n\n### Go \u002F No-go\n\n[Clear to proceed | Proceed with changes below | Hold — escalation pending]\n\n### Checklist for term day\n\n- [ ] Final paycheck ready, correct amount, delivered per researched rule\n- [ ] Continuation-coverage notices (COBRA \u002F state analogs) prepared\n- [ ] [State] unemployment notice prepared\n- [ ] Severance agreement (if applicable) with the consideration period\n      required for this specific situation\n- [ ] Return of property \u002F access cutoff coordinated\n- [ ] [etc.]\n```\n\n## Consequential-action gate (terminate an employee)\n\n**Before producing a \"Go\" recommendation or a term-day checklist marked ready:** Read `## Who's using this` in `~\u002F.claude\u002Fplugins\u002Fconfig\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Femployment-legal\u002FCLAUDE.md`. If the Role is **Non-lawyer**:\n\n> 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:\n>\n> - Employee, jurisdiction, reason, planned date\n> - Every high-risk flag the review surfaced (recent complaint, protected leave, protected class + timing, whistleblower, thin documentation, comparator, contract\u002Fhandbook promise) — with detail\n> - Jurisdiction-specific findings (final pay, PTO, required notices, mass-layoff rules) and where they were cited from\n> - Severance\u002Frelease analysis, including any OWBPA\u002Folder-worker-protection angles\n> - Open questions and what's unresolved\n> - What could go wrong (the claim theory this fact pattern supports)\n> - 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)\n>\n> If you need to find an attorney, solicitor, barrister, or other authorised legal professional: contact your professional regulator (state bar in the US, SRA\u002FBar Standards Board in England & Wales, Law Society in Scotland\u002FNI\u002FIreland\u002FCanada\u002FAustralia, 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.\n\nDo not produce a \"Clear to proceed\" output past this gate without an explicit yes. A marked-DRAFT flagged for attorney review is fine.\n\n---\n\n## Close with the next-steps decision tree\n\nEnd 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.\n\n## What this skill does not do\n\n- Make the termination decision. It checks the decision.\n- Have the conversation. The manager does that.\n- State release or jurisdiction rules from memory — every rule is researched\n  and cited at the time of review.\n- Guarantee no lawsuit. It reduces the risk by catching the obvious problems.\n",{"name":5,"description":42,"argument-hint":43},"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.\n","[describe the termination, or attach documentation]","main","4a6c651889c97cc9140580363c73e0eb17379c2b","employment-legal\u002Fskills\u002Ftermination-review",1960,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics","https:\u002F\u002Fanthropic.com","2026-11-08 22:42:37",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":53,"prompt":63,"zipAvailable":64},[54,57,60],{"tool":55,"command":56},"npx","npx skills add anthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal --skill termination-review",{"tool":58,"command":59},"bunx","bunx skills add anthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal --skill termination-review",{"tool":61,"command":62},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add anthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal --skill termination-review","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Femployment-legal\u002Fskills\u002Ftermination-review\u002FSKILL.md",true,[],[67,97,118,137,159,170],{"skillNo":68,"name":69,"nameZh":6,"description":70,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":71,"categories":72,"keywords":78,"publishedAt":37},"01M718SG9G2R92ECCD0HYK2R5E","reg-feed-watcher","Check regulatory feeds now and report what's new since the last check, filtered by your materiality threshold. Use when the user says \"check the feeds\", \"what's new\", \"regulatory update\", when running from the scheduled agent, or when manually pasting a regulatory development for classification and diff.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fregulatory-legal\u002Fskills\u002Freg-feed-watcher\u002FSKILL.md",[73],{"categoryNo":74,"categoryName":75,"taxonomyType":76,"taxonomyTypeDesc":77},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[79,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,34,91,31,92,93,94,95,96],"reg","watcher","reg feed watcher","running","feeds","filtered","diff","development","for","classification","new","now","scheduled","check","last","update","report","regulatory",{"skillNo":98,"name":99,"nameZh":6,"description":100,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":101,"categories":102,"keywords":103,"publishedAt":37},"01M718SCRTBN55DMTVSPG67A7N","policy-redraft","Produce a proposed marked-up policy redraft that closes a gap found by \u002Fregulatory-legal:gaps or \u002Fregulatory-legal:policy-diff. A first draft for internal review — not for direct application to approved policy documents. Use when the user says \"redraft the policy\", \"draft the policy fix\", \"mark up the policy\", or when gap-surfacer hands off a gap for drafting.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fregulatory-legal\u002Fskills\u002Fpolicy-redraft\u002FSKILL.md",[],[104,105,85,87,106,107,108,34,109,31,110,111,20,112,113,114,115,116,96,117],"policy","policy redraft","up","fix","produce","documents","drafting","gaps","draft","id","gap","mark","first","direct",{"skillNo":119,"name":120,"nameZh":6,"description":121,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":122,"categories":123,"keywords":124,"publishedAt":37},"01M718S8RV0C4NMVKG078CBFXP","policy-diff","Diff a specific regulatory change against the indexed policy library. Use when a reg has changed and you need to know which policies it touches and what the gap is, when the user says \"diff this reg against our policies\", \"which policy does this affect\", or \"gap analysis\", or when reg-feed-watcher hands off a material item.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fregulatory-legal\u002Fskills\u002Fpolicy-diff\u002FSKILL.md",[],[85,104,125,126,31,127,128,79,129,80,130,131,132,133,34,134,114,135,136,96],"policy diff","which","you","analysis","text","change","paste","library","material","gap analysis","what the","name",{"skillNo":138,"name":139,"nameZh":6,"description":140,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":141,"categories":142,"keywords":143,"publishedAt":37},"01M718S6521Y0FT4T24VCFKVG5","matter-workspace","Manage matter workspaces — create, list, switch, close, or detach the active matter (practice-level). Use when working across multiple clients or matters and you need to keep one engagement's context separate from another, or when a substantive skill needs to know which matter it's working in.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fregulatory-legal\u002Fskills\u002Fmatter-workspace\u002FSKILL.md",[],[144,145,126,146,147,148,89,34,31,127,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158],"workspace","matter workspace","switch","manage","workspaces","keep","across","create","engagement","close","active","clients","list","it","context",{"skillNo":160,"name":111,"nameZh":6,"description":161,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":162,"categories":163,"keywords":164,"publishedAt":37},"01M718S3FPEJNQGCMQ1AR8M4HE","Open gaps tracker — what's flagged and not yet closed. Use when the user asks \"what gaps are open\", \"gap tracker\", \"remediation status\", or wants to close (--close GAP-ID) or risk-accept (--accept GAP-ID) a tracked gap.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fregulatory-legal\u002Fskills\u002Fgaps\u002FSKILL.md",[],[111,113,114,36,153,165,166,167,168,34,169,31,21],"tracker","remediation","status","open","accept",{"skillNo":171,"name":172,"nameZh":6,"description":173,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":174,"categories":175,"keywords":181,"publishedAt":37},"01M718S06WSZ9Y24JKYM0VVPPE","gap-surfacer","Reference: shared gap- and comment-tracker framework backing \u002Fregulatory-legal:gaps and \u002Fregulatory-legal:comments. Tracks open policy gaps with remediation status, ingests gaps from policy-diff, surfaces what's open and aging, routes to owners, and notifies gap owners via Slack with per-send confirmation. Loaded by the gaps and comments skills before doing substantive work.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Fclaude-for-legal\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fregulatory-legal\u002Fskills\u002Fgap-surfacer\u002FSKILL.md",[176],{"categoryNo":177,"categoryName":178,"taxonomyType":179,"taxonomyTypeDesc":180},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000037","律师与法务","PROFESSION","适用职业",[114,182,183,184,85,104,185,168,186,187,188,189,111,190,191,192,193,165,166,194],"gap surfacer","shared","tracks","send","confirmation","aging","false","comments","with","work","slack","via","surfaces"]