I don't know why you've been downvoted, there are valid criticisms that you've brought up. Especially: > the employee would need to confer with lawyers how to

I don't know why you've been downvoted, there are valid criticisms that you've brought up. Especially: > the employee would need to confer with lawyers how to control what now becomes a public spectacle (along with its usual problems of libel, PR, fake news, etc.). I don't think I even have a good armchair solution for this, let alone a real one. -- I think in general it's a difference of where I would draw the line. This: > Basically, it sounds like an institution at any time can announce "hey we did nothing wrong, and we would like to explain why, and have just asked the employee if they accept but they haven't responded yet" seems like a feature to me, not a bug. If an employee is making accusations against a organization, than the organization should have a chance to clear their name. --- However I don't have a good response to the issues of libel, PR, fake news, etc., except possibly to have a requirement that whatever is put out in the press release from the organization be approved by the ex-employee in question. This guarantees that A) The organization is not lying in a way that the employee is harmed by. B) The employee is not lying in a way the organization is harmed by. If it's impossible for the two to come to a conclusion, than either party can say something about it, or contest what the other says. This also allows the employee to say "I wanted to do a joint press release with $org, but we could not come to an agreement about what to release.", so at least the damage from this can be turned either direction. Edit: Formatting