Exactly, and you have to be willing to bear the time and expense of suing a corporation with more money and attorneys than you.

Every time someone has a casual "Well, you can just sue them" answer to being wronged, they forget that the court system (at least in the US) is inaccessible unless you're rich and richer than your opponent. If my employer does something wrong to me, like wage theft, fraud, harassment, discrimination, it doesn't matter that I can sue them in theory. In practice, it's me and my $5,000 in life savings vs. 100 corporate attorneys working at a $N billion company who will inundate you with paperwork and motions and procedural tricks. Not to mention, if you sue them, they will fire you in retaliation (which is also probably illegal) and may even go so far as informally blacklisting you in your industry. So you're giving up your time, your life savings, likely going into debt, and giving up your future employability, just to pit your one already over-worked attorney vs. their army. Good luck.

Thats why, even if I hate the company I work for, I always do my best to keep a good relationship with them. Thats not always possible of course, but having former coworkers being able to say good things about you helps take a lot of worry off my back.

The extent varies, but courts do see in a very bad light companies applying too many resources against people they clearly harmed. When those people are employees, the view gets worse.

That doesn't mean that suing is easy or cheap, but only that things are way more balanced than your comment makes it look like.

I'd at least speak to a lawyer to see how "easy" a case is.

One attorney may be all you need if the evidence is grossly in your favor. No point denying yourself the opportunity, especially if you can afford the consultation fees.

If its a difficult case, then a good lawyer will tell you ahead of time that they don't think they can win and that you probably shouldn't pursue the case. If its borderline, they'll probably accept the case but you gotta pay them.

If its ridiculously easy, they'll take the case for free on their dime / contingency (because they're so confident they're gonna win).

In slam dunk cases, either because you're being sued frivolously or suing someone for a well-documented violation of a clear-cut law, then the legal work can be cut down dramatically by filing a motion for summary judgment. If you're not relying on disputed material facts for your argument, i.e., "I'm being sued by my former employer for violating my non-compete clause. This is the non-compete clause. It is not enforceable because it violates California labor law", it' definitely the way to go.

>If you're not relying on disputed material facts for your argument

Vis a vi the original question,

"I never said that. Do you have a recording?"

I feel like the jury is more likely to believe the unwilling subpoenaed witness from HR from the company that turned you down who says: “we turned the candidate down, because when we checked their references, Bob at XYZ corp said that the candidate never worked at XYZ corp” over Bob (who has every motive and reason to lie).

Especially when you get the follow up questions, and find out HR left contemporaneous notes in their HRIS tool, which corroborate the story.

Remember that the standard for a civil suit is not “beyond a reasonable doubt”, but “more likely than not”. I really don’t think you’d need a recording to win that case.

Sure, but now that you're talking about a jury you're in court and you don't have a summary judgement.

Ah, yes, of course. I missed the point about handling the case on summary judgement.

> the court system (at least in the US) is inaccessible unless you're rich and richer than your opponent.

Employees with grievances sue companies all the time, because it works for them.

Companies may have lots of money, but that doesn't mean they want to burn it. They'll often settle even frivolous lawsuits because it is cheaper than litigating.

Except, you don't sue the individual. You sue the company since the individual was acting as a representative of the company. The company has much deeper pockets than the individual.

On "slam dunk" cases, some lawyers will work for small retainer and large cut of settlement. You no longer have to spend time chasing. You just supply lawyer with info when requested.

You just have to make someone believe you’d be willing to take it to court. In reality, very few civil disputes make it to a court room.

In a case like this, your lawyer would send their lawyer a letter, their lawyer would tell them they’re going to lose, and you’d negotiate a settlement.