You were let go before your cliff, that is, at the end of year one, for no reason other than to deny you one year's vested options that you'd have to pay to exercise?
Yeah, it seems odd that there are startups who know enough to do 4/1 vesting with a cliff, but also don't know enough to not abuse it this way.
The most unpleasant "founder disputes" I've ever seen have been in partnerships, not silicon valley style startups with vesting, and usually result from not having anything documented.
I'd be willing to say most "valley style" startups don't do this cliff-fighting options thing, which is why it's so astounding when it happens. Even what Zynga and Skype are said to have done wasn't outright "take stock away from someone right before a cliff since it has appreciated".