By all means argue that they made her feel that it was not possible or sensible to try to do the job she wanted to do. But she resigned, and that's not the same thing.
It's very difficult to deduce causality in that situation. She could have been fired due to not fitting in with the organization due to her valid concerns, or she could have brought up concerns due to bias from being fired. It is most likely somewhere in the middle, where her observations were somewhat truthful and somewhat biased.
Based on the timing it doesn't seem like your "Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2)" conclusion makes sense. It wasn't like she gave out a lot of specifics, and when people thought that wasn't enough evidence that she then resorted to "vague and non-specific" claims. The timing was the opposite.
My guess (having seen other examples of this) is the board depended too much on the legal advice they got. That is, I'm sure their lawyers recommended giving as few details as possible, because every detail you give is a potential opening for a lawsuit. This is generally standard legal advice when firing someone. The problem with that advice is that while it may make sense from a purely legal perspective, it is absolutely horrible practical advice when it comes to communicating their rationale for a decision of this magnitude.
the interview went off the rails because she insisted their answers werent valid. She was told she was fired for performance reasons (whether true in reality or not is questionable). i dont know if arguing with the exit interviewers has any point to it, shouldnt she just see an employment lawyer instead?
To me it reads more like she didn't like the policy and went out to find a reason to justify removing the policy. Whether it made sense or not was irrelevant.
48 hours is not the right interval to be making that judgment. And firing her in response to correct the situation was about the worse and most extreme of actions.
(And please note, I think Richards made a mistake and showed terrible judgment.)
They didn't fire her. She said "I will quit if you don't meet these demands" and they were unwilling to meet the demands.
If she didn't threaten to quit, I can't imagine they would've done anything other than tell her no. But she gave them an ultimatum and they chose which side they would be on.
I agree with your sentiments, but she was not fired. She resigned. There is a big difference. Of course, I wasn't there so I don't know if it was a forced resignation (ie. firing) or not, but everything I look up says she resigned.
This aspect of the situation seems exceedingly clear to me.
reply