You’ve been offered severance. You read it once. Then again. And the same thought keeps coming back: this feels low. It is not generous. It does not reflect your time, your role, or the way things actually ended. You suspect you may have leverage to ask for more, but a different fear takes over just as quickly. If I push back, will my employer revoke a severance offer that is already on the table? Will asking for more leave me with nothing?
That concern is one of the most common questions I hear from California employees facing a severance agreement. The fear is understandable. When money is already on the table, it feels risky to touch it. Many employees worry that even raising the issue will provoke the employer to shut the door, withdraw the offer, or turn a negotiable situation into a take it or leave it ultimatum.
I’m Matt Ruggles. I’ve been practicing employment law in California for more than 30 years, and I’ve negotiated severance agreements across every industry and job level. I’ve handled these negotiations for C-suite executives, physicians, sales executives, software developers, and frontline employees alike. I wrote this blog because this question comes up in almost every severance conversation I have. Employees tend to assume the employer is doing them a favor and that any pushback is dangerous.
After decades of handling these negotiations from the inside, I see it very differently. This article explains why that fear is usually misplaced, how employers actually think about severance, and what you should understand before deciding whether to accept an offer as-is or ask for more.
Matt’s Negotiation Insight:
Employers almost never offer severance casually. By the time a severance agreement is presented, the employer has already evaluated the risk created by the termination and decided that paying for closure is preferable to uncertainty. Severance is offered to secure a release of claims, limit future exposure, and prevent the termination from turning into a dispute. The fact that an offer exists usually means the employer anticipated questions, counterproposals, and negotiation as part of achieving that finality.
If you’ve been offered severance and you’re unsure whether it’s safe to negotiate, you don’t have to guess. I’ve reviewed thousands of severance agreements for California employees, and I can tell you quickly whether pushing back makes sense in your situation.
Call me at the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 before you sign anything.
If your employer says your severance offer is “non-negotiable,” read my blog: Non-Negotiable Severance in California: 5 Myths Dispelled By a Lawyer.
Why Employers Rarely Revoke a Severance Offer After Negotiation
When employees worry that negotiating will cause a severance offer to disappear, they are usually assuming the employer is acting emotionally or impulsively. In reality, severance decisions are almost always driven by risk management, not ego. After handling these negotiations for decades, I see the same pattern over and over again. Employers do not revoke severance offers lightly because doing so almost always works against their own interests.
Below are the primary reasons employers typically stay at the table once severance is offered, even when an employee asks for more.
Reason #1: Severance Is Meant to Prevent Lawsuits, Not Start Them
Severance agreements exist for one core reason: to reduce legal risk. Employers pay severance to secure a release of claims and close the chapter on an employment relationship without a fight. The goal is containment, not escalation.
Pulling a severance offer simply because an employee asked questions or requested more money undermines that goal. Revocation can transform a manageable exit into a disputed termination. It can also send a clear message to the employee that the employer is no longer interested in resolving the situation professionally, which is often the exact trigger that pushes employees to consult counsel and explore formal claims.
From the employer’s perspective, revoking severance rarely saves money. It increases exposure. It invites scrutiny. And it risks converting a situation that could have ended quietly into one that now carries legal fees, management distraction, and reputational risk.
Matt’s Legal Insight:
Employers know that stiffing an employee on the way out is one of the fastest ways to turn a quiet termination into a lawsuit.
If you’re curious about how successful severance negotiations actually unfold, read my blog: Examples of Successful Severance Negotiation.
Reason #2: Severance Offers Are Part of an Employer’s Legal Risk Strategy
By the time a severance offer is presented, the employer has almost always already evaluated the legal landscape. These offers are rarely improvised or left to a single manager’s discretion. In most cases, Human Resources, in-house counsel, or outside employment counsel has already reviewed the termination and assessed potential exposure before any money is put on the table.
That internal analysis typically considers several factors, including the employee’s length of service, job level, compensation, and how the termination unfolded. Employers also look closely at whether the facts raise any risk of wage-and-hour issues, discrimination, retaliation, or problems tied to medical leave or accommodation requests. The severance amount offered often reflects that risk assessment, even if the employer never says so out loud.
Because of that process, negotiation is usually anticipated. Employers understand that a severance offer is not automatically accepted on first presentation, especially by experienced or long-term employees. Asking for more does not come as a shock. It is part of the expected back-and-forth that accompanies a risk-based exit strategy.
Matt’s Experience:
By the time a severance offer is on the table, the employer has already priced in the possibility that the employee may push back.
If you want to understand the finer points of executive severance contracts, read my post: How to Negotiate Executive Severance Agreement Terms.
Reason #3: Employer Attorneys Want the Severance Agreement Signed, Not a Dispute
Once a severance agreement is issued, the employer’s legal counsel is typically in “transactional mode,” not litigation mode. Their assignment is straightforward: get a valid, enforceable agreement signed and close the file. At this stage, defense counsel is focused on precision, compliance, and efficiency, not escalation.
That means ensuring the release is enforceable, the statutory requirements are met, and the language is clear enough to prevent future disputes. Counsel’s job is to eliminate ambiguity, not introduce new risk. Revoking a severance offer because an employee asked for more does exactly the opposite. It creates uncertainty, prolongs the dispute, and increases the likelihood that the employee will seek their own legal representation.
From a defense lawyer’s perspective, pulling an offer mid-stream is counterproductive. It can turn a manageable exit into a contested matter and invite scrutiny that did not need to exist. Most defense attorneys would rather explain why a counteroffer was rejected than explain why the company chose to provoke a conflict that could have been avoided.
Matt’s Observation:
In most cases, defense counsel wants a signed agreement in their “done” folder, not a new dispute on their desk.
Reason #4: Revoking a Severance Offer Often Backfires on Employers
Revoking a severance offer carries real downside risk for employers, both legally and practically. From the employee’s point of view, a pulled offer often feels punitive, especially when it follows a reasonable attempt to negotiate. That perception alone can harden positions and push an employee toward litigation they might otherwise have avoided.
In some situations, revocation can also look retaliatory, particularly if the employee raised concerns about wages, discrimination, medical leave, or other protected activity before termination. Even if the employer believes it acted lawfully, the optics of withdrawing severance after a negotiation attempt can be difficult to defend later if the dispute escalates.
Employers also understand that actions taken at the end of employment are often examined closely if a claim is filed. A calm, professional negotiation process is easier to justify than an abrupt withdrawal that appears reactive or hostile. For that reason, most employers choose restraint. They may say no. They may hold firm. But they usually do not blow up the process.
If you want to avoid common pitfalls when negotiating your severance, read my post: 7 Employee Mistakes That Ruin Severance Negotiations.
Matt’s Observation:
Employers tend to be risk-averse at termination, not impulsive.
Every severance negotiation turns on the facts. Your role, your tenure, how the termination happened, and what risk the employer sees all matter. If you’re negotiating a severance agreement and want to know whether there’s room to improve the offer without creating unnecessary risk, that’s exactly the conversation I have with clients every day.
Call me at the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to talk it through before you respond.
What Happens If an Employer Threatens to Revoke a Severance Offer?
It does happen. Not often, but enough that it’s worth addressing honestly. In my experience, actual revocation of a severance offer in response to negotiation is the exception, not the rule. When it occurs, it is usually tied to a very specific set of circumstances, not a routine request for more money.
Most of the time, what employees encounter is not an outright revocation, but a threat. An employer may say the offer is “final” or suggest that pushing further could result in the offer being withdrawn. Those statements are often designed to stop the conversation, not to end it. And when a real risk of revocation does appear, that is exactly the point where strategy matters most.
When I see signs that an employer may actually pull an offer, the goal is not to escalate. It is to stabilize the situation. In those rare cases, backing off the negotiation temporarily can be the smartest move. That may mean pausing discussions, narrowing the issues, or simply letting the employer hold their position while we reassess the leverage and the overall risk picture.
The key point is this: a threatened revocation does not mean the negotiation has failed. It means the approach needs to be adjusted. Part of effective severance negotiation is knowing when to press and when to stop pressing. After more than 30 years of doing this, I can say with confidence that walking the process back is often far more effective than forcing a confrontation that helps no one.
If you’re an executive preparing to negotiate your exit, read my guide: Executive Severance Negotiation Mistakes and How to Avoid Them.
What Usually Happens When You Negotiate a Severance Offer
In most severance negotiations, the employer’s response is far more restrained than employees expect. The most common outcome is a simple no, with the original offer left intact. Nothing is revoked, and the employee remains free to accept the offer as originally presented.
In other cases, the employer may counter with a modest increase. That movement usually happens when there is some form of leverage in the background, whether related to the employee’s role, tenure, compensation, or the circumstances surrounding the termination. When legitimate leverage exists, it is sometimes possible to move the dial and secure an improved severance package, one that better reflects the employee’s situation and makes the process feel far more balanced.
Occasionally, the improvement is not strictly monetary. Employers may agree to changes in timing, payment structure, reference language, or limited benefits continuation. These adjustments may seem minor on paper, but they can materially improve the employee’s transition and overall sense of fairness.
That said, every severance negotiation is unique. The employee’s position, the company’s culture, the termination facts, and the employer’s risk tolerance all matter. There is no formula and no guaranteed outcome. Severance negotiation is exactly that, a negotiation. The result cannot be predicted in advance, and anyone who promises otherwise is not being honest about how this process actually works.
What can be said with confidence is this: when severance is offered, negotiation is usually anticipated, rarely punished, and sometimes rewarded.
If you want to learn how to push for a better severance outcome, read my post: How to Maximize Your Severance Offer in California.
What Types of Legal Leverage Actually Matter in Severance Negotiations?
When severance negotiations move beyond a simple yes or no, it is usually because the employer perceives some level of legal risk. That risk does not need to be proven in court to matter. It only needs to be credible enough that the employer prefers certainty over escalation.
In my experience, the strongest severance leverage usually comes from claims tied to how the termination occurred or what the employee was promised before or during employment. Certain categories of California employment claims consistently get an employer’s attention because they are fact-driven, expensive to defend, and difficult to resolve early.
Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) Claims
One of the most common sources of severance leverage involves potential claims under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA). These include discrimination, harassment, and retaliation claims arising out of the termination or events leading up to it.
Employers understand that FEHA claims carry attorney’s fees exposure and are often difficult to eliminate early in litigation. Even when an employer believes it acted lawfully, the cost and uncertainty associated with FEHA claims frequently factor into severance negotiations.
California Labor Code Section 1102.5 (Whistleblower Retaliation)
Another significant leverage point involves retaliation claims under California Labor Code section 1102.5. This statute protects employees who report suspected legal violations or refuse to participate in unlawful conduct.
These whistleblower claims tend to be highly fact-specific and can become particularly risky for employers when a termination closely follows a complaint, report, or internal objection. Employers know that these cases often turn on credibility and internal communications, which makes them difficult to control once litigation begins.
Promissory Fraud
In some cases, severance leverage may also arise from promissory fraud. This occurs when an employer made specific promises about compensation, job security, equity, promotion, or continued employment, while never intending to honor those promises.
Promissory fraud claims tend to get attention because they focus on intent and credibility, not just policy compliance. They also frequently depend on emails, texts, and internal discussions that employers would rather not have scrutinized in a public forum.
Not every employee has this type of leverage, and having leverage does not guarantee a better outcome. But when it exists, it often explains why an employer is willing to negotiate rather than insist on a take-it-or-leave-it severance offer.
Practical Ground Rules (If the Employer Is Willing to Negotiate)
When an employer engages in severance discussions, the objective is not to win a showdown. It is to improve the outcome without turning a manageable negotiation into a stalled or hostile process. Over the years, I’ve seen that a handful of basic principles make the difference between productive discussions and avoidable failure.
These are ground rules that help keep negotiations alive and effective.
Ground Rule #1: Keep Your Severance Request Realistic
Extreme or unsupported demands are one of the fastest ways to shut down a severance negotiation. Employers may tolerate pushback, but they rarely respond well to numbers that have no connection to the employee’s role, tenure, compensation, or termination circumstances.
A reasonable request keeps the conversation professional and signals that the employee understands this is a negotiation, not a ransom demand. You do not need to demand the maximum imaginable outcome to improve your position. You need a request that can be justified.
Matt’s Observation:
You don’t need to demand the moon to improve your outcome, but you do need to justify what you ask for.
If you’re calculating what you’re owed, read my guide: Severance Pay Demand: How to Calculate Effectively.
Ground Rule #2: Don’t Overplay Legal Leverage Too Early
One of the most common mistakes employees make is threatening litigation too early or too loudly. Even when legal leverage exists, leading with threats often hardens positions and makes resolution more difficult.
Many successful severance negotiations resolve quietly, without explicit threats or aggressive posturing. Strategic restraint often produces better results than confrontation. Employers and their counsel are capable of recognizing risk without being bludgeoned by it.
Matt’s Observation:
The strongest leverage is often implied, not shouted.
If you’re unsure whether to push back on your offer, read my blog: Should I Attempt to Negotiate My Severance Offer?
Ground Rule #3: Get Legal Advice Before You Respond to a Severance Offer
Severance agreements almost always contain provisions that go far beyond a severance check. Broad releases, waivers of unknown claims, non-disparagement clauses, confidentiality obligations, and post-employment restrictions can all have long-term consequences that employees underestimate.
Getting legal advice early helps frame the negotiation properly, avoid costly missteps, and apply leverage in a way that improves the outcome without poisoning the process. Many of the worst severance outcomes I see are not caused by employer misconduct, but by employees making avoidable mistakes before they ever speak to a lawyer.
Matt’s Observation:
The biggest severance mistakes I see happen before an employee ever talks to a lawyer.
If you’d like to know how employment lawyers approach severance deals, read my guide: How to Negotiate Severance Like an Employment Lawyer.
Frequently Asked Questions About Negotiating a Severance Offer in California
Will my employer revoke a severance offer if I try to negotiate?
In most cases, no. Employers generally do not revoke a severance offer simply because an employee asks for better terms. Severance agreements are designed to reduce risk and close matters cleanly, not to provoke disputes. Asking questions or making a reasonable counterproposal is usually anticipated and rarely punished.
Can negotiating a severance agreement make things worse for me?
Negotiating a severance agreement does not usually make things worse when it is done thoughtfully. The most common outcome is that the employer says no and leaves the original offer open. Problems tend to arise only when demands are extreme, unsupported, or accompanied by unnecessary threats. Calm, informed negotiation is far safer than silence.
What happens if my employer threatens to pull the severance offer?
Threats to revoke a severance offer are uncommon and often strategic rather than literal. When this happens, it does not necessarily mean the offer will disappear. In many situations, the appropriate response is to slow the process down, reassess leverage, and avoid escalation. An experienced employment lawyer can help determine whether the threat is real and how to protect the offer already on the table.
Should I talk to a lawyer before negotiating my severance in California?
Yes. Severance agreements often include broad releases, waivers of unknown claims, and post-employment restrictions that employees underestimate. Speaking with a California employment lawyer before responding helps you understand what you are giving up, whether you have leverage, and how to negotiate without increasing risk. Many costly severance mistakes happen before legal advice is ever obtained.
If you’re trying to figure out how to choose the right attorney for your case, read my guide: How Do I Select a California Employment Lawyer?
Conclusion: Why Asking to Negotiate Severance Is Usually Safer Than Staying Silent
By the time a severance offer is made, the employer has already decided that paying for a clean exit makes sense. Negotiation is not an act of defiance. It is a normal and expected part of the process. Employers generally do not revoke severance offers simply because an employee asks questions or seeks better terms.
The real risk is not asking. It is signing an agreement without understanding what you are giving up, what leverage you may have, or whether the offer on the table truly reflects your situation. Thoughtful negotiation, especially when guided by sound legal advice, often improves outcomes without increasing exposure or conflict.
Severance is not about being aggressive. It is about being informed. When employees understand how employers think about severance, fear tends to fade and better decisions follow.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 to Evaluate Your Potential Lawsuit
Matt Ruggles has a thorough understanding of California employment laws and decades of practical experience litigating employment law claims in California state and federal courts. Using all of his knowledge and experience, Matt and his team can quickly evaluate your potential claim and give you realistic advice on what you can expect if you sue your former employer.
Contact the Ruggles Law Firm at 916-758-8058 for a free, no-obligation evaluation.
Blog posts are not legal advice and are for information purposes only. Contact the Ruggles Law Firm for consideration of your individual circumstances.
.
