Bruce, this is what I posted there, might as well put same thing here:
I'm not so sure the other factors like the chocolate shop cut in favor of the "Chicago" company.
Are we to believe the people at "Chicago" knew nothing about his partner having lost his income, and lots of all these factors mentioned? Even if not that: Are we to believe that no one in management knew they were taking away his and his partner's only source of income, whether they knew about the chocolate shop or not?
If they had just fired him, he'd get his 30,000+ buyout plus his months of unemployment insurance at least. What they were trying to do instead was shame him into quitting voluntarily - which of course meant not getting the 30,000+ buyout, and obviously no unemployment insurance because (in NY) you don't get that if you quit - nothing! If he quit: No cushion at all to ease him back, while finding new opportunities.
If you don't have any money saved or are in debt, that $50,000 or $60,000 can be the difference between having a place to live while you regroup vs. not having one. (If the $106,000 a year were the only money for the couple, while that number sounds like a lot, that could mean they had no savings to fall back on. If you're an employee, a lot of income taxes are taken out of that before you get your paycheck.