> EDIT: On a side note, anyone else notice how the article names the ex-employee and not the employer? Eh, yeah, that is weird, now that you mention it. It's l

> EDIT: On a side note, anyone else notice how the article names the ex-employee and not the employer? Eh, yeah, that is weird, now that you mention it. It's like they were interested in protecting the reputation of the company, but they wanted to throw the ex-employee to the wolves.