The Delicate Art of Getting Fired: Staying Unshakeable When It Matters Most

When major aspects of your job suddenly shift — a reduced bonus, new duties you never agreed to, a demotion, unresolved conflict, or other unfavourable changes — employees often feel they’re being eased out rather than openly dismissed. And sometimes, that instinct is accurate. In employment law, this situation is known as constructive dismissal (or constructive discharge). 

Employers, for their part, are often surprised to learn that making unilateral changes to essential terms of employment can legally amount to a termination, even if they never said the words “you’re fired.” 

But whether you’re an employee feeling pushed out or an employer managing a difficult situation, one fact is crucial: there’s a big difference between constructive dismissal occurring and being able to prove it. And if the employee takes the bold leap of resigning, both sides should expect litigation because it rarely resolves quickly. 

Constructive Dismissal: A Heavy Burden for Employees, a Risk for Employers 

In a constructive dismissal claim, the employee must prove that the employer fundamentally breached the employment contract. The employer doesn’t have to prove anything unless the matter goes to court.

That dynamic matters.  

When employees resign and claim constructive dismissal, they voluntarily give up their income and take on a significant evidentiary burden. Employers, meanwhile, might find themselves defending a claim that could have been avoided with clearer communication, better documentation, or legal advice before making changes. 

Why Being Fired Is Often Better for Employees 

From a strategic standpoint, employees are usually better off if the employer makes the decision to terminate them, rather than trying to force the issue by resigning. Why? 

• A without‑cause termination normally leads to immediate severance discussions. 

• Even terminations “for cause,” which employers sometimes believe are justified, frequently fail to meet the high legal bar — strengthening the employee’s negotiating position. 

• A weak allegation of cause can become costlier for employers than a straightforward without‑cause termination. 

With constructive dismissal, the opposite dynamic generally applies: the employee starts the fight uphill. The employer is not automatically on the defensive — the employee must put them there. 

The Calm Strategy: Assert Rights Without Triggering Cause 

When work conditions deteriorate, emotions and frustration can escalate quickly on both sides. But legally and strategically, small choices can dramatically affect the outcome. 

For employees, the smartest approach is often to: 

• Remain calm and professional. 

• Document concerns factually and in writing. 

• Assert contractual or legal rights — firmly and repeatedly 

• Avoid behaviour that could justify a termination for cause 

A confident, well-informed employee who won’t back down can be uncomfortable and (frankly) annoying from the employer’s perspective. But that discomfort is precisely where employers sometimes make mistakes: reacting hastily, alleging cause prematurely, or implementing changes without proper communication or consent.

And it is often those avoidable missteps that turn a difficult situation into a successful legal claim. 

Takeaway for Both Sides 

Constructive dismissal disputes turn on steady, deliberate conduct. Employees benefit from slowing down, documenting carefully, and getting advice before taking any irreversible steps (like resigning). Employers benefit from communicating clearly, thinking through changes, and avoiding decisions made in frustration. In practice, the most effective strategy for both sides is the quieter one: stay measured, keep records, and avoid emotional reactions. When one side rushes, overreaches, or acts impulsively, that’s usually when the real legal exposure begins. Sometimes, the smartest move is simply to hold steady and let the other side make the mistake.