This kind of judgement is incredibly unprofessional.
>An employee is constructively discharged when his employer, rather than discharging him directly, inten-tionally creates a work atmosphere so intolerable that he is forced to quit involuntarily. Kirsch v. Fleet St., Ltd., 148 F.3d 149, 161 (2d Cir. 1998); Chertkovav. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 92 F.3d 81, 89 (2d Cir. 1996). We have explained that working conditions are intolerable when, viewed as a whole, they are "so difficult or unpleasant that a reasonable person in the employee's shoes would have felt compelled to resign." Chertkova, 92 F.3d at 89 (quotations omitted).
Using the above framework, the judge determined that a reasonable person would not find a 150k/yr salary "to be sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive work environment." when 150k/yr is a really good salary. Reasonable person tests are always a judgment call. I disagree with this judgment call, but I don't think it's an unprofessional one.
This sort of reasonableness standard is why the spouses and children of very rich people get millions of dollars a year in alimony and child support.
Probably not, unless they knew beforehand what Mr. Scott's tolerable financial situation was and purposefully reduced his compensation to below that level.
The judge that wrote the opinion deserves to be paid less than $150,000 a year.
They're not going in with nothing and ending up with tens of millions of dollars on salary through savings.