Executive-level employment disputes: from internal assessment to litigation

If you have recently left an executive role, the issue is not merely whether the termination of the employment relationship was "correct" in a formal sense. The real stakes are broader: what rights you can recover, what reputational and commercial risks must be controlled, how quickly you must act and whether it is worth pursuing negotiation or going straight to court.

At executive level, employment disputes do not resemble standard litigation. There are bonuses, confidentiality clauses, performance targets, access to sensitive information, relationships with key clients and, sometimes, tension between the official reasons and the actual reasons for the separation. In such cases, a hasty reaction can cost more than the dispute itself. Below: the correct route, from internal assessment to the decision between settlement and trial.

Step 1: the legal classification of the measure - not drafting the challenge

The first step is neither a challenge nor a tense exchange of emails. It is to establish exactly what type of measure the employer has taken and what effects it produces. At director level, we frequently see five scenarios:

1. Dismissal for reasons relating to the employee's person
   Separate evidentiary regime and deadlines.
2. Dismissal for professional unsuitability
   The key question: is there a history of evaluation, or did it appear suddenly?
3. Disciplinary dismissal
   The most formalised - and the one in which procedural defects most often appear.
4. Dismissal for reasons not relating to the employee's person, including reorganisation
   It is checked whether the position actually disappears, or only on paper.
5. An informal "negotiated exit", without sufficient contractual documentation
   The riskiest scenario: verbal promises, zero written guarantees.

The classification is decisive for deadlines, evidence and strategy. In the first 48 hours, the useful questions are: what is the exact legal act by which the termination occurred; what official reason the employer invokes; whether there is a difference between the official reason and the actual context; what financial component is at stake (fixed salary, bonus, commissions, shares, benefits); and what impact the dispute may have on reputation and business relationships.

The sequencing that shortens the path to a good decision

From the outset, separate three questions, in this order: what is legally challengeable, what is commercially negotiable and what needs to be protected reputationally. Mixed together, they produce emotional reactions; kept separate, they produce a strategy.

The procedural timetable: why this is not a "we'll look at it later" file

The Labour Code uses short deadlines in employment disputes, and this completely changes how the first days after termination must be managed. If the documents are not gathered and organised quickly, the negotiating position weakens from the very start:

Three deadlines that decide the strategy

Interactive: the real file is bigger than the dismissal decision

The dispute is not resolved by reading the decision in isolation. Check what you already have gathered and organised:

Ten documents that reconstruct the file

• The individual employment contract and all addenda
• The job description
• The internal regulation
• Evaluation, bonus, KPI and internal governance policies
• Business plans, targets and correspondence regarding their modification
• The dismissal decision or termination document
• The notice letter, where applicable
• The professional evaluation documents
• The summons and the disciplinary investigation records, if any
• Relevant extracts from the employee records register (REGES)

What you are actually looking for: discrepancies between the employer's narrative and the documents

Not just "formal" errors: commercial targets changed without agreement or without a coherent methodology; poor evaluations appearing suddenly, with no history; reorganisations in which the position disappears on paper but the duties remain within the company; disciplinary accusations masking a management conflict; non-payment or reduction of bonuses under the pretext of termination; non-compete or confidentiality clauses activated aggressively, without a serious analysis of their validity and proportionality.

For a sales director, the bonus is often the critical point. If the targets were revised informally, if the territory or portfolio was changed during the year, or if the company's strategic decisions directly affected sales, the dispute is no longer strictly about dismissal - but also about monetary rights and contractual fairness.

Quick test: natural instinct or costly mistake?

Scenario 1: "I was told verbally that I'm leaving on amicable terms, with a fair package. I'll sign now and we'll sort out the bonus afterwards."

A costly mistake. A "negotiated exit" without sufficient contractual documentation is one of the five classic scenarios - and the riskiest. Once signed, leverage disappears: the bonus, references, mutual confidentiality and the wording around the departure are negotiated before, not after.

Scenario 2: "The decision was communicated to me three weeks ago. First I'll try a discussion with HR, then I'll think about a lawyer."

Risk of time-barring. For disciplinary sanctions, a challenge must be filed within 30 calendar days of notification. Informal discussions do not suspend the deadline - and a good case lost to time-barring stays lost. Document review starts immediately; the discussion with the employer is held in parallel, not beforehand.

Scenario 3: "I was told in advance, in a meeting, that the position was being eliminated. The written notice never came, but everyone knew."

It does not replace formal notice. The right to a minimum notice period of 20 working days is expressly regulated for the situations provided by the Codul muncii (Labour Code), and the calculation of this term has generated clarifications in case law. Being "informed informally" has no value as legal notice - and this is exactly the type of flaw that shifts the balance of power in negotiation.

Scenario 4: "The company activated my non-compete clause for 24 months, across the entire industry. There's nothing I can do, I signed it."

Validity and proportionality must be assessed. Non-compete and confidentiality clauses activated aggressively, without a serious assessment, are a recurring pattern. In an executive mandate, limiting these risks is part of the negotiated package - because it directly affects professional relaunch, not just past income.

Negotiation or litigation? The decision rests on overall risk, not momentary frustration

Many executives ask directly: "is it worth suing the company?" The professional answer is: it depends on the balance between the legal strength of the case, financial urgency, reputational tolerance and the real objective.

Art. 80 Codul muncii (Labour Code) · O.U.G. nr. 80/2013 (Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013)

Why the employer's financial risk pushes towards settlement

If a dismissal is found to be unfounded or unlawful, the court may order its annulment and the payment of compensation equal to the indexed, increased and updated salary rights, plus any other entitlements the employee would have been entitled to (art. 80). The legal text is explicit: the employee shall be reinstated to the situation prior to the dismissal. For the employer, the stakes are not just "winning the case", but the cumulative cost of salaries, disputed bonuses and a prolonged conflict - the reason why many companies accept reasonable settlements before escalation.

In addition, labour disputes are procedurally advantageous for the employee in terms of costs as well: the legislation on judicial stamp duties provides scutiri for this type of claims (O.U.G. nr. 80/2013 (Emergency Ordinance no. 80/2013)).

Reputational risks - sometimes more important than salary rights

The signal sent to the market about the reasons for departure; the impact on relationships with major clients; contractual restrictions that may delay your relaunch; the possibility that the dispute may be reinterpreted internally as an integrity or performance issue; the effect on negotiations for a new role. This is why good negotiation does not mean "giving in", but securing a complete package: a financial component, reference clauses, mutual confidentiality, a joint or neutral message about the separation, clarification of bonuses and limitation of non-compete risks.

How we work on executive mandates

1. Rapid case diagnosis

We review the termination documents, contractual history, bonuses, performance evaluations and reputational exposure. The goal: to quickly determine whether the case should be pushed towards firm negotiation or prepared for litigation.

2. Tailored strategy

A former commercial director has different priorities than an operational manager: client portfolio, targets, variable remuneration, market messaging, professional mobility.

3. Negotiation with business logic

Often the optimal solution is not “to win the case”, but to close the conflict on terms that protect your income, your reputation and your next step. We negotiate on the complete outcome, not just the amount.

4. Litigation when necessary

When the documents show a vulnerable dismissal or a serious breach of patrimonial rights, we prepare the litigation methodically: evidence, chronology, communication risks and procedural positioning.

"At executive level, disputes are rarely won on emotion alone and often won on the contradictions between documents, chronology and the company's actual conduct."

- Practical observation from executive conflict mandates

Fees and comparison with the large firms

The fee is set transparently, depending on the legal complexity, the economic value, urgency, volume of documents and stages of work: hourly fee, retainer, fixed fee or, where the nature of the mandate permits, success fee. Compared to large firms such as NNDKP, Țuca Zbârcea & Asociații, Mușat & Asociații or BMA Legal, the factual difference lies in team structure, platform scale and working style: a large firm mobilises extensive teams and complementary practices for multi-jurisdictional mandates; a boutique team offers more direct coordination and close contact with the lawyer leading the mandate. The credible comparison is not about superlatives, but about the object of the mandate, team size, level of specialisation and the coordination style you consider suitable.

Frequently asked questions

Have you left an executive role and was the separation handled incorrectly?

Don't start with impulsive reactions, but with a structured assessment. We can quickly clarify three things: how solid the case is, what can realistically be obtained and what strategy best protects your professional position. The useful first step is a confidential, solution-oriented discussion.

Contact us

Sources and references

Codul muncii (Law no. 53/2003, republished) - art. 61, 65, 66 (notice), art. 80 (effects of unlawful dismissal), art. 252 (disciplinary time limits): legislatie.just.ro · O.U.G. nr. 80/2013 on judicial stamp duties - exemptions in labour disputes: legislatie.just.ro · Labour Inspectorate - REGES, the general register of employee records (portal since 1 April 2025): reges.inspectiamuncii.ro · CodulMuncii.ro - practice summaries on disciplinary time limits: codulmuncii.ro · Buju, Stanciu & Asociații (BSA): bsa.ro

Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Time limits, remedies and strategy depend on the type of measure and the documents of each file; for an applied opinion, analysis of your own documents is necessary. Information about other firms comes from public sources and does not constitute a ranking.