[add-sub-mul-div]

You're conflating law enforcement with regular life. Regular people and employers don't have the investigative authority of law enforcement. Law enforcement has a higher standard of proof because it comes with higher penalties.

The rest of us who don't have the authority to conduct formal investigations have no choice but to make decisions based on the best knowledge we have and the benefit of our life experience.

The employer did what investigation they could. That's what they've been doing until this point. This information about Roiland didn't just come out today. This is all easily found out. You've reflexively invented the fearmongering scenario that action was taken on allegations alone.

[notch656c]

What on earth "best knowledge" could an employer know about domestic disputes? America has a deep deep well of benefits offered to people who claim domestic violence. They can get a TRO and have the children and gun rights taken from the person, they can get assistance from a battered women's shelter, they can get the upper hand in family court, they can get the house/custody because after the TRO the person is kicked out of the house and can be argued as having left the family. If the person is foreign, they get massive massive incentive to claim domestic abuse as that's the magic words they need to invoke VAWA and get that golden residency visa. Not saying any of this is the case here, but a mere charge or allegation of domestic violence is difficult for an employer to investigate in any meaningful way.

And even more dystopian : "The woman was not identified in court documents." Yeah lets fire someone when we can't even find out who made the accusation, and don't know whether they're guilty or not. How do you even investigate the accuser's claims as an employer if you have no idea who they even are. It's dystopian to have court cases where you can't even find out who an adult accuser is.

Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. IMO employers should stay the fuck out of domestic disputes until the person is actually found guilty.

[dragonwriter]

> What on earth "best knowledge" could an employer know about domestic disputes?

They can know the impact on their brand and the terms of their contract’s morality clause.

[notch656c]

Yes it ensures I will never watch the show again because I find their presumptuous morals repulsive. The aggregate effect I suppose will definitely have an effect on the brand. IMO they trashed their brand by sacking people before they were found guilty.

God bless the right to bankrupt yourself to mete out preliminary justice, though.

[jjulius]

>IMO they trashed their brand by sacking people before they were found guilty.

To be fair, AS simply said they've ended their relationship with Roiland without saying why. Are you not also doing the same thing to AS here that you're accusing them of doing to Roiland (eg, making a proof-less accusation and terminating your relationship with the show because of it)?

[notch656c]

>making a proof-less accusation and terminating your relationship with the show because of it)?

Lol publicly firing someone in what is obviously tied to criminal accusations is the same as not watching a show? That's like saying preferring to date latina women is the same thing as being racist in your hiring process.

[jjulius]

>Lol publicly firing someone in what is obviously tied to criminal accusations is the same as not watching a show?

You can use the same reason to not take part in two things that might be wholly separate.