See Cloud Counsel in Action
Explore how a real employment law case comes together on our platform—from the first event statement through AI-powered claim analysis and attorney collaboration. Click on names, documents, and features to learn more.
Rodriguez v. Talworth Digital Solutions
Maria Rodriguez, Marketing Director at Talworth Digital Solutions, was placed on a Performance Improvement Plan three weeks after filing an HR complaint about discriminatory comments from her supervisor. Two months later, she was terminated. This is how she built her case.
Fictional timeline data for illustration only.
I joined Talworth Digital Solutions in McLean, Virginia as their Marketing Manager at a salary of $95,000. I signed the offer letter and an employment agreement...
I was promoted to Director of Marketing with a raise to $128,000. My year-end review rated me "Exceeds Expectations" in every category. Derek Huang — the same p...
After I returned from maternity leave, Derek began making comments about my "fit" and "commitment level." In our team meeting on May 14, he said — looking directly at me — "I need people who are here, not people whose heads are at home." James Okafor was sitting across the table and heard every word.
The comments started within days of my return from maternity leave in early May. The team meeting where Derek said it in front of everyone was Wednesday, May 14 — I have the calendar invite.
I was present for these comments. They were made directly to me and in front of my team.
I started dreading team meetings and stopped speaking up in front of Derek. I was seeing a therapist within a month of returning from leave.
WigmoreAI AsksBesides James Okafor, did anyone else react visibly when Derek made the May 14 comment? Names help us identify corroborating witnesses.
Based on your HR complaint email, Derek removed you from the Meridian 2.0 product launch — a project you created and led to record results — and reassigned it to a less experienced colleague, citing a need for someone "without competing obligations."
Three weeks after my HR complaint, Derek called me into a private meeting and placed me on a 60-day Performance Improvement Plan citing "declining performance metrics." I had never received a written warning in five years. My Q2 numbers had beaten every department target.
Derek handed me the PIP on August 4, 2025 — exactly 21 days after HR acknowledged my complaint. I counted.
I received the PIP document directly from Derek in a private meeting. I have the original with his signature.
I couldn't sleep the week after the PIP. I knew what it was — a paper trail being built to fire me — and I felt powerless to stop it.
The PIP froze my bonus eligibility and my scheduled merit raise — roughly $18,000 in compensation I lost even before the termination.
WigmoreAI AsksThe PIP cites declining performance, but your Q2 report shows every target exceeded. When did Derek first raise performance concerns in writing — if ever, before your HR complaint?
Never in writing before the complaint. Derek praised my Q1 campaign in a company-wide email in April. The first negative feedback was the PIP itself, three weeks after HR acknowledged my complaint.
I started building my case file on Cloud Counsel. I identified my witnesses, uploaded my employment documents, and reconstructed the timeline from my hiring thr...
Tom Archer, the CEO, terminated my employment for "failure to meet PIP objectives." The termination letter recites performance problems that my 2022 and 2023 re...
J. Madison PLC filed a dual EEOC charge on my behalf: Title VII gender discrimination and Title VII retaliation. The supporting documentation package came strai...
Illustrative only — not legal advice.
Fictional concerns for illustration only.
Punished for complaining
“Three weeks after I put my complaint in writing, I was on a PIP. Two months later I was gone. I don't think that's a coincidence.”
Treated differently after having a baby
“Everything changed the day I came back from maternity leave. Same job, same numbers, same me — but suddenly my "commitment" was a problem.”
Harm to professional reputation
Synthesized from Maria's termination event and Q&A answers: being escorted out by security in view of her team, plus a termination record citing performance failure, may support reputational-harm damages and shapes reference-check strategy.
Fictional exchange. Not a depiction of actual privileged communications.
"I was in the May 14 team meeting when Derek made those comments about Maria. He specifically said 'I need people who are here' while looking at Maria. It was uncomfortable for everyone in the room. Two other team members exchanged looks. Derek had never said anything like that before Maria went on maternity leave."
Ready to Build Your Case?
Cloud Counsel puts the tools in your hands. Build your case at no cost—strong case files get noticed.