That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing that when an organization like this feels there is enough to fire someone or otherwise act in such a way, there's almost certainly at least sufficient smoke behind the acquisition for them to make that determination. The idea being propagated by some people on there that he's been proven innocent is complete nonsense.
At least those posters have enough self-awareness to know I'm talking about them.
Dude gets triggered incredibly easily; I mean look at that follow-up post. Pay him no mind
Not sure I agree with that. I said before and still contend that it's likely his performance played some role in this, though I'd doubt it's completely one or the other.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the fact remains, that they acknowledge that their investigation turned up nothing. It's not his fault she didn't cooperate, and to hold that against him (IMO) is wrong.
With the reasoning being that I don't agree with your POV.... got it, thanks for your valuable criticism.
It acknowledged that it was unable to prove her claims but that other information turned up that led them to this decision. If I don't turn up sufficient evidence to fire for cause, that doesn't mean I didn't turn up anything that would make the administrators believe the accuser enough to move on. Let's also qualify that the burden of proof of proof shouldn't be on the accuser here because she didn't bring the administrative action. It should be on her in the civil case.
I mean the release flat out came out and said that they became aware of information that they decided it was best to go in a different direction. I won't make an assumption as to the level of information they needed to make the decision because I plainly don't know.
Maybe I'm not understanding, but this sure seems to contradict what you wrote in the first quote above.