[dragonwriter]

> You have to assume that the people are innocent until they are proven guilty.

You only have to do that when you are the trier of fact (jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial) in a criminal prosecution.

Outside of that, the rules are different.

> If you fired Levandowski and win the case, then he sues.

And loses, because at-will employment, and being suspected, even wrongly, of civil wrongdoing creating liability for your employer is not a protected class.

[ChuckMcM]

If he has an employment contract as is likely as the chief executive of an acquired company, and by firing him essentially without cause (the allegations are unproven) he was owed significant compensation which was denied him presuming it was for cause. He would sue for breach of contract. But we do not know his arrangement with the company.

[cortesoft]

Yeah, I am always confused by people who seem to think you need a good reason to fire someone. In almost every state, this isn't the case; as long as you don't fire someone for one of the defined illegal reasons, you are fine. You can fire someone because you flipped a coin, or because you just felt like firing someone.

[sverige]

That depends on the jury (and therefore the jurisdiction) actually. There have been several times when I made this argument in favor of removing some employee who was actively working to destroy a team and was made to jump through lots of hoops by corporate lawyers fearful of lawsuits.

[cortesoft]

Well, they would have to convince a jury that they were actually fired for one of the protected reasons. Often times lawyers will want you to document the reasons you are firing someone so that you can use them as a defense against a lawsuit claiming you fired them for a protected reason.

[sverige]

Right, but that process gives the lie to "at will" employment.

[phamilton]

"I've never seen a trial I couldn't lose" - An attorney friend of mine.