Man sues ex-employer for S$5 million over termination, wins case but awarded S$1,000

A strained relationship between two leaders at a software company culminated in one of them sending aggressive e-mails attacking the other's competence.

When asked to apologise, the former, Prashant Mudgal, refused to do so.

Senior management at the company, SAP Asia, was set on terminating Mudgal, but instead put him on a 45-day performance improvement plan (PIP) before doing so.

A High Court judge found that the outcome of the PIP was "pre-ordained" and that the company did not give him a genuine chance to actually improve, according to a judgment dated Jan. 21.

Sued for nearly S$5 million

The case was heard in court after Mudgal sued SAP Asia for nearly S$5 million in loss of earnings from 2020 until May 31, 2025.

He was eventually awarded S$1,000 in nominal damages after the judge allowed the claim for breach of the implied term of mutual trust and confidence in the Employment Agreement.

The judge did, however, find that Mudgal was the "author of his own misfortunes" that culminated in the termination of his employment, and failed to prove the losses he claimed that flowed from the breach.

Strained relationship with another team leader

SAP Asia is the Singapore-incorporated subsidiary of a German multinational software company that develops enterprise applications to manage business operations.

Mudgal was the head of services sales in the Asia-Pacific and Japan region for a line of cloud-based management software called Ariba.

He had a "strained relationship" with Otsakchon Raman, the head of services delivery for Ariba in the Asia-Pacific and Japan and Greater China regions, as well as some members of their respective teams.

Two incidents preceded his eventual termination from the company, the judge noted.

Transfer of staff member

One incident in July 2018 stemmed from the transfer of a staff member working on an ongoing project in India from Raman’s team to Mudgal’s team.

Conflict arose when the services delivery team was unable to source a suitable replacement for him, and the client they were working with became unhappy with the staff member leaving.

Subsequently, e-mails were exchanged between Raman and a member of Mudgal’s team, which led to Mudgal privately sending her an e-mail accusing her team of “gross incompetence”.

This exchange was later brought up to senior management by Raman.

In a separate incident in October 2018, a dispute over project timelines prompted Mudgal to send an e-mail — copied to senior management — in which he criticised Raman’s leadership and questioned her integrity.

Mudgal later refused to apologise when asked to do so.

Plans to terminate him

In November 2018, Charmaine Seabury, the global vice-president of services sales, told human resources business partner Adele Teo-Gomez that there was “full alignment” among senior leaders on removing Mudgal.

However, Teo-Gomez suggested that a “final written warning” be provided instead of removing him.

Over the course of the next month or so, Teo-Gomez and others from the employee relations department discussed with Seabury the various options open to her with regard to Mudgal.

They eventually settled on placing him on a 45- day performance improvement plan (PIP), which began on Mar. 21, 2019.

While the PIP ended on May 5, 2019, Seabury did not consider the issues with Mudgal’s conduct to have been satisfactorily resolved.

Both Seabury and her supervisor believed that Mudgal was just "simulating" his behaviour during the PIP to satisfy its requirements.

On Oct. 25, 2019, Seabury made it known that she wanted his employment to be terminated “as soon as possible,” and the notice of termination was served to Mudgal on Nov. 21.

Outcome of PIP pre-ordained

The judge noted that Mudgal was "never given a genuine opportunity to improve".

"The attitude which Ms Seabury bore towards the claimant, namely her desire to terminate his employment as soon as possible, persisted even after she formally placed him on the PIP," he said.

He pointed out that despite improvements in Mudgal's performance, Seabury had doubted this improved conduct and had already expressed that she wanted to terminate his employment even before the PIP was due to end.

Based on this and the various e-mail exchanges between senior management, the judge said that the outcome of the PIP was "pre-ordained" and that Mudgal was "doomed to fail".

Author of his own misfortunes

However, the judge was also of the view that Mudgal failed to show that his loss of future earnings was a result of the company’s conduct.

Mudgal had posited that the company's "breaches and heinous conduct" leading to his eventual termination had resulted in a substantial loss of earnings of S$4,961,767.05 from 2020 until May 31, 2025.

The judge noted that he arrived at this figure by applying a “conservative” 10 per cent uplift to his annual future earnings from his last-drawn annual income of S$665,673 in 2019, less his earnings to-date of S$50,000.

He claimed not to have been able to find employment despite applying for more than 300 jobs from 2020 to 2023.

The judge said that he failed to see how SAP's conduct had any bearing on Mudgal's employability in the labour market, much less caused him "irreparable damage to his ability to secure gainful employment".

"To begin with, I very much doubt that prospective employers would have even known of the manner in which [Mudgal] was treated by [SAP] unless he decided to disclose the entire saga on his own accord when applying for other jobs," the judge said.

He added that it was objectively easy to see that Mudgal's "self-righteous and unyielding behaviour" contributed to the hostility in an already volatile environment between the services sales and services delivery teams.

"He was, to a large extent, the author of his own misfortunes that culminated in the termination of his employment," he said.

Top photos from Canva