Severance is often paid (in at-will employment jurisdictions) just as a way to get the departing employee to sign a document agreeing not to sue, and possibly agreeing not to disparage.

I'm not an employment lawyer (but am a former lawyer), and I would think that if someone said they were going to quit way in the future, and was then fired, they would have a pretty poor case if they tried to sue. The company would credibly claim that it was not based on impermissible discrimination or retaliation, but was just because they assumed the employee would massively slack off.

There's also the question of damages — if you were about to quit anyway, then your damages would be relatively small because it would only be the salary that would have been paid between the time you were escorted out and the time you planned to leave. It could be $100k if you're very well-paid, but that pales in comparison to what you would get in a discrimination lawsuit (which is what severance agreements are seeking to avoid).

It would also be relatively difficult to find a lawyer who would take a case with a relatively small amount on the table, and an uphill battle in terms of proof.

I would definitely want to talk to an employment lawyer familiar with the laws of the local jurisdiction before making any assumptions.

> Any termination of employment before then is either a with-cause firing or a layoff where severance is required.

If they're paying you until that future resignation date, it's not a firing or a layoff, is it? The part that your employer is responsible for is your salary, not providing you with things to do.