[zigzigzag]

There's a big difference between guilty and "Google found it credible". The latter could mean almost anything, but presumably as he denied it there wasn't actual film of it happening or any other hard evidence. Bear in mind, a big part of feminist/SJW culture is to never disbelieve a 'victim': literally, to make an accusation is to automatically be credible unless there's clear evidence you made it up.

Expecting a guy who clearly believes he was let go due to an unfounded malicious accusation to tell every future employer about it seems extreme. He obviously expected that Google would not leak his personnell notes, apparently that was a mistake.

[stouset]

You don't have to throw feminism under the bus in order to recognize that there's a difference between a claim that's credible and a claim that's true.

> Expecting a guy who clearly believes he was let go due to an unfounded malicious accusation to tell every future employer about it seems extreme.

Sorry, but not at the SVP level. You are a semipublic face of the company and its culture, and it's in both your and the company's interest for them to know about these things to be able to get out in front of revelations like this.

[tptacek]

That's not what the story says happened. The story says, according to their anonymous sources, Singhal was about to be fired over the harassment incident, and Google instead allowed him to leave gracefully.

[zigzigzag]

I read the story. I don't see how that contradicts what I said. He was effectively let go: told he could resign with dignity or be fired, same result in the end.

[pvg]

Article: "He was about to be fired and resigned"

You: "Accused of a crime he didn't commit, he escaped into the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by feminists and SJWs, he survives as a soldier of fortune"