Skip to content
CasePrompts
Build

By practice

Record workflows for employment litigation

The timeline of complaints, decisions, and documentation; comparator evidence; policy compliance; and decision-maker knowledge. Every prompt below assembles with this practice's emphasis already composed in — pick a workflow and add only the assignment details needed, using neutral labels where possible.

Lens version
1
Status
Published
Review scope
Internal workflow framing; no independent legal review recorded

Report a correction

Open the builder as employment litigation →Review practice workflowsAll practices

Practice workflow set

Start with a workflow

Find contradictionsMixed / full case record
Track the shifting reasons for the decisionThe stated rationale across documents and testimony, divergences classified.Open in the builder →
Extract key testimonyDeposition transcript
Pull decision-maker knowledge admissionsWho knew about the complaint, and when — verbatim with page:line.Open in the builder →
Draft from the recordMixed / full case record
Outline the decision-maker's depoCommit-then-confront sequences keyed to the personnel file.Open in the builder →
Interrogate the fileMixed / full case record
Cited Q&A across the personnel recordEvery answer dated relative to the challenged decision.Open in the builder →

A employment litigation prompt, end to end

The configured employment litigation lens adds this practice context to the template: This work product supports an employment matter, where the sequence of complaints, decisions, and documentation — and who knew what when they decided — usually decides the case.

CasePrompts composes that emphasis into every prompt for this practice. Here is one complete, copy-ready example: the “Track the shifting reasons for the decision” workflow using mixed / full case record as the source type, with the employment litigation emphasis already built in. It pastes into any AI tool as is.

Preview and copy the complete example
Track the shifting reasons for the decision · Mixed / full case record

Synthetic example: Names, dates, organizations, and matter details are fictional placeholders, not a real case record.

Customize in builder
CONTEXT:
You are a litigation support analyst assisting employment litigation counsel in a employment discrimination and retaliation dispute matter. The attached materials are: (1) the certified deposition transcript of Jordan Lee, the decision-maker, and (2) the witness's prior statements: the personnel file, complaint emails, and position statement. The issues that matter are: decision timeline; stated rationale; comparator evidence. This work product supports an employment matter, where the sequence of complaints, decisions, and documentation — and who knew what when they decided — usually decides the case.

INSTRUCTIONS:
Compare the deposition testimony against each prior statement, fact by fact. Identify every place the accounts diverge and classify each divergence as exactly one of:
- DIRECT CONTRADICTION — the statements cannot both be true.
- MATERIAL OMISSION — a fact asserted in one account is absent from the other where it would naturally appear.
- SHIFTED DETAIL — timing, sequence, distance, speed, or identity changed between accounts.
Then, for each DIRECT CONTRADICTION and SHIFTED DETAIL, draft a two-step cross-examination sequence: first a lock-in question committing the witness to the deposition testimony, then a confrontation question presenting the prior statement, each with its cite.

In this engagement, additionally: Focus on shifting explanations for the employment action across documents and testimony, and on divergence between the personnel file and the decision-makers' accounts.

TEMPLATE — format your output exactly as follows:
## Divergence map
| # | Topic | Deposition account (verbatim + cite) | Prior statement account (verbatim + source + cite) | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|
## Cross-examination sequences
For each qualifying divergence:
**Divergence #__ — [topic]**
- Lock-in: "[question]" (commits witness to: [depo cite])
- Confront: "[question]" (prior statement: [source + cite])
## Consistencies that hurt us
Briefly list facts the witness has stated consistently across all accounts, with cites — these are the points cross should avoid.

EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS:
For every finding, identify the source document by name and cite page:line for transcripts, timestamps for audio/video, and Bates/page for documents. Every divergence requires two citations — one per source — and verbatim language from both. If a prior statement referenced in the materials list was not actually provided, say so explicitly rather than working from assumptions. Do not classify a divergence as a DIRECT CONTRADICTION unless the verbatim language supports it; when in doubt, classify down to SHIFTED DETAIL and flag it under "Borderline — attorney review."

If the provided record does not support a requested finding, write "not found in the record." Do not infer or fill gaps from outside knowledge.
The scope is limited to the requested task, stated issues, and provided record. Do not introduce outside subjects or sources.
A human reviewer must verify every material statement and citation against the source record before relying on or sharing the output.

Every template in the library assembles like this for employment litigation — open the builder and add only the assignment details needed, using neutral labels where possible, or read the Attorney's Guide to AI Prompting for the method behind it.

How employment litigation practitioners should brief an AI

How does the CasePrompts employment litigation lens approach extract key testimony?
Prioritize testimony establishing decision-maker knowledge and timing, the stated reasons for each employment action, comparator treatment, and departures from written policy.
How does the CasePrompts employment litigation lens approach build a chronology?
Sequence complaints, protected activity, performance documentation, and employment decisions precisely — proximity and order are often the whole case — attributing each entry to its author and date.
How does the CasePrompts employment litigation lens approach find contradictions?
Focus on shifting explanations for the employment action across documents and testimony, and on divergence between the personnel file and the decision-makers' accounts.
How does the CasePrompts employment litigation lens approach summarize the record?
Organize around the decision at issue: the stated reasons, the documentation that predates versus postdates the decision, comparator evidence, and policy compliance.
How does the CasePrompts employment litigation lens approach draft from the record?
Build examination sequences that commit decision-makers to the reasons and the timing before any confrontation with the documents.
How does the CasePrompts employment litigation lens approach interrogate the file?
In every answer, note when each document was created relative to the challenged decision, and attribute knowledge to specific people with cites.

Template guides for employment litigation

Read the clean, general guide for each curated workflow below. To apply the Employment litigation context to your own facts, use the builder actions above.

Browse the full prompt library →