> That's not post-hoc rationalization. That's the stated reason. That's also clearly the reason if you take an inventory of the facts on hand. The stated reaso

> That's not post-hoc rationalization. That's the stated reason. That's also clearly the reason if you take an inventory of the facts on hand. The stated reason can obviously be a post-hoc rationalization. It's entirely possible that she crossed a line her employer drew after the fact. > That's not my position and I don't appreciate this distortion. Well, if you could clarify, that would be great. It's clear to me that there's some moral component to your position, given your language: >>> she's untrustworthy >>> [she] betrayed the trust that her position entitled her to. > She doesn't have the right to assert her interpretation of law and morality on the entire corporation. (I should note that it's not her interpretation, it is the law.) > I would argue her action is narcissim and attention-seeking I does sound like you feel that her overriding moral obligation was to serve her employers to their satisfaction, and that it was a strong moral violation to take a fairly anodyne action that caused her employers some discomfort. No money was lost, no security systems breached, no confidential data exposed. The only thing that happened was a few people saw a required legal notice that her employers would rather have people forget about.