Law360 Canada (November 13, 2026, 2:31 PM EST) --
 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
Did you know that Julius Caesar was not actually assassinated as reported? He in fact survived the attempt of his conspirators Brutus et al., following which he launched an action for damages. I recently came across this little-before-known court decision.
Reasons for judgment
HILARIOUS J: This is an action by the plaintiff, Julius Caesar, for damages for wrongful dismissal.
I. Facts
The plaintiff was born in 100 B.C. In the year 69 B.C., after completing his studies as a “Rhodes scholar,” the plaintiff was approached by a human resources agent sent by the defendant Republic, looking for a candidate as a quaestor.
The plaintiff stated that originally he had hoped to become a chartered accountant but since there was a glut of accountants, he thought he would give it a whirl as a quaestor.
He was soon elevated to the position of praetor and then military consul. This latter position offered him many travel opportunities, taking him throughout Europe, Asia and Africa, whose peoples he subdued on behalf of the defendant.
In the year 49 there was a corporate shake-up and after the smoke had cleared, the plaintiff was appointed dictator-in chief.
On the morning of the Ides of March, 44 B.C., the plaintiff arrived at his office as usual. He was met by a delegation of the defendant led by Brutus, who asked him to resign immediately. When he protested, the delegati took out their sharpened styli and attacked the plaintiff. The plaintiff, rather surprised, ran out of his office without even clearing out his desk. When he arrived home, his wife, Calpurnia, asked him what had happened to his toga, and he said to her, “What exactly did that oracle say to you about the Ides of March?”
The plaintiff now brings this action for wrongful dismissal.
II. Issues
Dismissal for cause
The defendants contend that the plaintiff was dismissed for cause. They allege that the plaintiff interrupted his conquests of Egypt by spending several days secluded with the Egyptian Queen Cleopatra.
The plaintiff’s personal chariot driver said that one morning when he picked Caesar up from the palace, the plaintiff came out smiling and remarked, “
Veni, vidi, vici.”
The court does not agree that this interlude constituted a just cause for dismissal. Julius Caesar was sent to Africa to conquer Egypt; Queen Cleopatra simply came with the territory.
There was also evidence that the plaintiff attempted to disrupt the Republic’s stability by tampering with the calendar, changing the name of the seventh month to July. The court sees nothing wrong with that. July sounds no worse than Pompuary. In any event, the court would apply the old maxim of Briton Law, namely, that the law does not concern itself with trifles.
Having found that the plaintiff was dismissed without just cause, the court must determine how much notice ought to have been given to the plaintiff.
III. Damages
a) Notice
As the plaintiff was employed as a dictator for less than five years, counsel for the defendants submit that notice ought to be in accordance with the provisions of the
Roman Fair Employment Standards Act for Gladiators and Other Personae, which requires one week’s notice per year served, plus four per cent vacation pay.
The plaintiff, however, is a patrician and Section 2 of the said Act reads, “This Act applies only to plebeians, as patricians are not deemed to be working.”
The court must therefore look at the circumstances to determine what is proper notice. The considerations are length of service and the plaintiff’s age, the possibility of obtaining similar employment elsewhere and the plaintiff’s prominence in the industry.
On this latter point, counsel for the plaintiff introduced an array of witnesses including leaders of barbaric groups who were former adversaries of the plaintiff.
One Frank, the Frank, said that the plaintiff and his legions laid siege to the Town of Frankville, on the east side of the Rhine River, looted the stores, pillaged the castle and took back with them to Rome over 2,000 of its fiercest inhabitants to fight in the gladiator arenas. The Frank described the plaintiff as being extremely efficient and prominent amongst world tyrants.
The defendants further plead that the plaintiff had been unemployed for over a year and a half now and that he has failed to mitigate his damages. On this point the plaintiff gave evidence that he continuously kept his eyes open for a similar position as dictator.
He indicated that he had initially made applications with numerous employment agencies specializing in recruitment of autocrats.
One Claudius Drachus, a personnel consultant with Despots Unlimited, told the court that nations are not hiring dictators these days. The grim economy, especially high interest rates, are mostly to blame. It seems unlikely indeed that the plaintiff will ever find a job comparable to his old job again.
An actuarial expert, one Cinna the Soothsayer, gave evidence that the likelihood of the plaintiff becoming a dictator again is about as high as the likelihood of Mount Vesuvius erupting.
Counsel for the defendant argues that the plaintiff should therefore undertake other work, perhaps returning to accounting. The court does not agree. How can the plaintiff return to accounting? He has already crossed the Rubicon.
The defendant argues that the plaintiff is skilled in the culinary arts. In fact, he has recently developed a special salad that has become very popular. But it is too early to tell whether this endeavour will or will not take off.
In view of the plaintiff’s age, the importance of his position, the difficulty of finding similar employment elsewhere and the length of service of the defendant, the court feels that six months’ notice is proper.
b) Punitive damages
The plaintiff also claims punitive damages. The recent decision of Pilonius v. Marcellus the Slave Driver of Gaul 28 All-Roman Weekly Summaries, page 11, is authority for allowing a claim for punitive damages arising out of a wrongful dismissal where the method of dismissal is egregious, abhorrent or shocking. This threshold was readily met here as during the confrontation the plaintiff said to Brutus, “
Et tu, Brute,” and Brutus responded, “Hey Caesar, you’re done. Tough toga.”
Under this head there will be judgment for 15,000 gold pieces.
c) Legal costs
The plaintiff will also have his legal costs on total indemnity scale as in any event the government will be paying for everything.
IV. Disposition
Judgment accordingly.