That's the double standard I was referring to—they didn't fire the plaintiff in this case quietly, months later, and he was only accused (incorrectly) of damagi

That's the double standard I was referring to—they didn't fire the plaintiff in this case quietly, months later, and he was only accused (incorrectly) of damaging the company. They fired him immediately, visibly, punitively. But they'll possibly lay off the actual cause of their problems quietly, later. I suppose that, as you say, they are worried about adding fuel to the fire by firing the parties who were actually at fault. Personally, I doubt it would. What's most likely to happen is that they get it wrong in both cases: first, damaging their reputation by firing someone who didn't do anything, and then later not firing someone who did damage their reputation, thus damaging their public reputation (perhaps) and hurting their internal reputation and morale (one would assume).