Legal Encounter One
There are a few liabilities and rights between NewCorp and Pat. First, NewCorp tried to discharge Pat after 30 days he worked for the company. Moreover, there were no adequate notices to Pat regarding his unsatisfactory performances before his layoff. If he did not know about his behavior, he cannot correct his behavior prior to his layoff. [Insert comma here to set off the adjective phrase beginning with "according to" (unless it is a dependent phrase)] According to the United States Department of Labor (2013), the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) protects workers by notification of 60 days in advance of [Wordiness: "in advance of" means simply "before"] discharge or layoff. Therefore, NewCorps cannot fire him. Notification of 60 days would be a reasonable time to Pat so he can correct his performance. NewCorps may discharge him only when (1) ensure Pat understands he is under unsatisfactory performances, (2) ensure 60 days meet after the notification. NewCorps did not meet these two conditions. Therefore, the company has liabilities.
Second, there is suspicious of layoff against Pat because of what he said outside work. NewCorp has no rights or interference to fire him because of what he said at a private meeting. Pat also had his rights to articulate his opinion at a school board meeting. However, NewCorp acknowledged Pat regarding his layoff right after a school board meeting. It is extremely suspicious. Pat can sue the company for unfair layoff. According to Cheeseman (2013), the company has to prove reasons why [Writing suggestion--remove "why" or "for why"] Pat is discharged [The passive voice is a form of "be" (is) and a participle (discharged). Over-use