I'm saying there's a good change Rubin's lawyers could convince a jury that Google wrongfully avoided paying him the compensation that was due. This would almos

I'm saying there's a good change Rubin's lawyers could convince a jury that Google wrongfully avoided paying him the compensation that was due. This would almost certainly cause the public to view allegations of sexual assault with greater suspicion. The point is, while Google itself determined that they had enough evidence to conclude that Rubin harassed someone, they probably didn't think they had enough evidence to convince a jury. All I'm saying is that the company should choose the least harmful option. Sometimes, being inflexible does more harm than good. For all we know, bringing this to trial would have made Google and the victim look like the bad guys, while the harasser looks like a hero standing up to a deceitful corporation. Instead, Google played it safe and chose not to risk it's reputation (which is an act of self interest) but also to avoid risking the reputation of the alleged victim (which is a benefit). Was this the right decision? Ultimately we'll never know short of inventing a time machine, but saying that Google unambiguously chose the worse of two options is short sighted.