It's case law, I can't find the link to the case I saw the first time this story ran that made it clear that Gebru was fired and did not resign. I did find thi

It's case law, I can't find the link to the case I saw the first time this story ran that made it clear that Gebru was fired and did not resign. I did find this however: https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135 https://edd.ca.gov/en/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135 >In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged and said: >. . . the claimant was not permitted to work to the effective date of her resignation and the employer did not pay the claimant her wages through that date. The claimant did suffer a wage loss by the action of the employer in accelerating the last day of work. Gebru was going to arrange a meeting with Google to discuss when she would resign, and Google opted to claim she had already resigned and simply fired her. This constitutes a firing as Gebru clearly did not intend an immediate resignation. >Either way, I'm confused about what the issue is here. I bring this up merely because the neutrality of the journalists reporting on the case has been brought into question, and I want to defend them describing the situation as a "firing" as being the neutral thing to do. Additionally, I think Google's twisting of labour law for Google's PR/Financial benefit speaks to Google's character in the entire affair, and we must fairly consider Google's actions when judging Gebru's, whose actions were controversial.