[BrendanEich]

Why didn't you search for the phrase I gave and read up? Suits get settled exactly that way, and also get headed off that way before filing. I'm writing in general of course. I am not commenting on my particular situation, note well. Suits also often get settled with various strictures on talking about the details. HTH.

[zwerdlds]

Sorry if I hit a nerve. I can see why it would be difficult.

I'm on the outside, so my the reading I did probably doesn't represent the full situation. I asked that question because I was genuinely curious - the resources I found seemed to indicate that constructive termination could still constitute wrongful termination in CA.

By the way, if you have a specific resource you want me to read, I'd love to have the link.

[BrendanEich]

I'm answering in generalities for legal reasons. It's not a matter of "[hitting] a nerve" so much as negotiated contracts. You should not assume in general (again, not specifying facts about my case) that "wrongful" cannot be negotiated to a settlement, including with terms governing statements parties can make. Labor law != criminal law: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Private_Law_vs_Public_Law

Therefore (again generalizing) if (likely net benefit of winning, adjusted for risk of losing) - (cost of suit) <= (benefit of settlement - lower cost of counsel to get to a settlement), and a similar relation for employer that takes into account PR risk-adusted costs as well, rational-actor parties tend to settle, with money flowing to the exiting employee and conditions binding the parties. This happens often, and is cloaked by non-disclosure terms almost always.