Her probation was cut short for strong performance. Weeks later, she was out the door
She refused to sign away her shares. Hours later, she was fired.
A Singapore start-up dismissed an employee the same evening she declined to sign documents that would have weakened her equity entitlement - then argued the real reason was poor performance. The Employment Claims Tribunal was not persuaded.
In a decision published on September 30, 2026, the tribunal found the worker had been wrongfully dismissed and awarded her $15,000 in compensation - a sum tied directly to the value of the equity she stood to lose.
The start-up was incorporated in October 2025. The worker joined as an intern in early December that year and was confirmed as a full-time employee on January 1, 2026 - nearly two months ahead of her scheduled probation end date. Her role was in quantitative research and marketing, and she earned $5,000 a month.
Her employment contract recognised her as a "co-founder-level contributor" and entitled her to a 2.25% equity interest in the company on a fully diluted basis - meaning her percentage would be calculated against all shares, including any issued to investors - once the company completed its first external funding round. The shares, once issued, would vest over four years: 25% after the first 12 months, the rest in monthly instalments over the following three years.
On or about January 20, 2026, the company signed a term sheet with an investor under which the investor would subscribe for new shares worth $1,000,000 in exchange for 20% of the company's post-transaction shareholding. The investment would come in tranches.
Then the company moved to restructure.
On January 29, it sent the worker a replacement employment agreement, backdated to her start date, intended to supersede the original contract. A day later, it sent her a revised version along with an employee share option plan. Under this new arrangement, her equity would no longer flow from continuous service alone. Instead, it would be tied to key performance indicators - growing user numbers month-over-month, improving or maintaining cost-per-acquisition, and contributing measurable revenue through marketing activities.
The tribunal described those KPIs as "vague and unclear, without any quantifiable measure" and found the new arrangement was "almost akin to a performance bonus." In plain terms, the company was asking the worker to swap a contractual entitlement for a conditional one - and the conditions were stacked against her.
She refused to sign.
That same morning - January 30, 2026 - the company received $200,000 as the first tranche of the investment. By 7.38pm that evening, the worker had been given notice of termination. By 8pm, her system access was cut, her email locked, and her keycard confiscated. A written termination notice arrived at her personal email at 11.08pm, along with a payment slip for $4,000 as salary in lieu of notice.
The notice cited no reason for the dismissal.
At trial, the company argued the termination was driven by "ongoing concerns regarding the claimant's performance, communication, professionalism, and overall suitability for the role." The managing director testified that the decision was made that day after discussions with team members. None of those team members were called as witnesses.
The tribunal found that explanation unconvincing. If the company truly intended to dismiss the worker for poor performance, why had it spent the preceding week negotiating new contract terms with her? The managing director's own evidence was that he had formed concerns about the worker's performance by mid-January - yet negotiations on the replacement agreement and share option plan continued right through to the day she was fired.
The timing, the tribunal found, spoke for itself.
There was also no paper trail. The managing director confirmed on the stand that the decision to dismiss for poor performance was not documented anywhere. The company pointed to some chat records showing the worker had been asked to follow up on tasks and had not updated a group chat before making a submission to an external party. But there was no evidence these matters were treated as grounds for dismissal, and the tribunal noted it was "difficult to see" how they could have been serious enough to justify termination.
Then there was the probation question. The worker's three-month probation period had been cut short significantly - suggesting the company was satisfied with her performance at the time. A rapid deterioration within a single month, the tribunal observed, was "hard to understand."
Two further performance complaints the company raised related to events that occurred after the dismissal - an alleged misrepresentation as co-founder and questioned figures in a grant application. Neither could have been relied on at the time of the termination.
On compensation, the tribunal held that equity incentives fell within the meaning of "loss of income" under Singapore's employment claims framework - reasoning that shares or options granted under an employment contract are a form of remuneration for work done, even if deferred. Rather than awarding the full 2.25% equity interest, the tribunal limited compensation to the first vesting tranche: the 25% of shares that would have vested after one year of continuous service, amounting to a 0.56% stake.
To value that stake, the tribunal used the worker's method - pegging the company's worth at approximately $5 million based on the investor paying $1,000,000 for 20%. That put the first tranche at $28,125. But the statutory cap on loss-of-income compensation was three months' gross pay - $15,000 - so the tribunal awarded the maximum.
For HR teams at start-ups and growing companies, the case is a pointed reminder: equity promises written into employment contracts carry real weight, and replacing them with vaguer terms - then firing the employee who refuses to accept - is exactly the kind of conduct tribunals will scrutinise. The absence of any documented performance concerns made the company's position considerably harder to defend.
