It can be, except here she literally admitted she was lying. It's also important to realize the monitoring software was installed after she was already underpe

It can be, except here she literally admitted she was lying. It's also important to realize the monitoring software was installed after she was already underperforming for an extended period. It was also not the sole evidence. If you actually read the case: * She admitted to falsifying her time sheet * She was already on some kind of PIP * The monitoring software recorded that she was not doing work on her machine, but also recorded whether she printed out documents, as she claimed, but she had not. * The file access logs also showed she was not opening them. * And again: she admitted she falsified her reporting Finally: The company did not sue her for this time. After she was fired for the above she sued them claiming they weren't justified in firing her after she falsified her time sheets and demonstrably lied about the work she did. In response the court ordered her to pay back at least some costs.