Settling employment law cases can be a complicated and murky process, with a little-known secret that has long been tucked away. However, times are changing, and this article aims to shed light on the hidden truths that often accompany these settlements.
Employee lawyers have a reputation for making audacious claims on behalf of their clients, ranging from age and racial discrimination to toxic work environments. Surprisingly, many of these lawyers and their clients are well aware that these claims may not necessarily be true. The motive behind these claims goes beyond the pursuit of justice and fairness; it lies in the potential for substantial non-taxable damages that such allegations can attract.
Employers, on the other hand, are faced with a dilemma in such cases. They often feel compelled to vigorously defend themselves against false allegations, even if it means incurring significant costs. Some employers would rather spend money on legal representation than reward an employee who has made unfounded claims.
However, these allegations can have severe consequences for the employee. They create financial and reputational risks, making it difficult for them to secure future job references. Defending against these allegations can also be a strategic move for employers. By shifting the focus of the case towards the palpable untruths in the employee’s claims, their credibility is shattered, weakening their overall position.
So, why do lawyers continue to make such claims, knowing the risks involved? The answer lies in the potential for punitive damages that are not subject to tax. Lawyers are hoping to reach a settlement that allocates a portion of the damages as non-taxable, providing a more favorable outcome for their clients.
In these settlements, employers often request indemnification from the employee in case the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) audits and determines that the non-taxable payment was, in fact, disguised severance rather than compensation for wrongdoings. This indemnity protects employers from potential tax liabilities and ensures that they do not bear the financial burden alone.
While this settlement strategy may seem advantageous for both parties, it is crucial to note that the CRA largely remains unaware of these arrangements. The likelihood of the indemnity being invoked is minimal, given the regulatory gaps that exist in monitoring such cases.
As the spotlight shines on these secretive settlement practices, it is essential for employees, employers, and legal professionals to navigate this territory carefully. Understanding the underlying dynamics and potential risks involved can lead to more informed decision-making in the realm of settlement negotiations.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: Why do employee lawyers make unfounded claims if they know they are false?
A: Employee lawyers often make such claims to pursue non-taxable damages, which can be financially advantageous for their clients.
Q: How do employers benefit from settling employment law cases with non-taxable amounts?
A: By allocating a portion of the settlement as non-taxable damages, employers can pay less in severance while providing the employee with the same net return.
Q: What is the purpose of indemnification in these settlements?
A: Employers request indemnification to protect themselves in case the Canada Revenue Agency audits and determines that the non-taxable payment was improper.
Q: How likely is it for the indemnity to be invoked by employers?
A: Given the lack of regulatory oversight, it is rare for employers to face the need to invoke the indemnity clause.