> How so? The fact that the company is attempting to minimize legal liability doesn't mean that the contractor was truthful. Apparently the contractor was trut

> How so? The fact that the company is attempting to minimize legal liability doesn't mean that the contractor was truthful. Apparently the contractor was truthful enough to warrant firing four people. What's the likelihood of them throwing four employees under the bus if there were no bite to the charges? A purely propitiatory sacrifice like that would be hell on employee morale. Good on the CEO for taking action. But my applause is diminished by the weasel words in the CEO's posts on the matter. In the first one, he described the person with the allegations as "a former short-term contract employee". The employee's blog post unequivocally stated that he only worked there for the month of August, so the purpose of such a comment on the CEO's part can only be to cast aspersions on his credibility. Now, in these latest comments, the CEO implies that the claims apparently had enough validity to warrant firing a bunch of people while going on to say that not everything claimed was true. Was this just legal ass-covering? In any case, it makes his public apology feel conniving and insincere. It may have been the best legal maneuver (I wouldn't know) but it makes for bad PR.