Even if he resigned, he resigned under duress. This wasn't an "I'm spending time with my family and kids" resignation/firing; it was a "oh shit we're screwed, we need to mitigate the damage and throw Parker under the bus to save the company". It's very likely he was a big part of the resignation discussions.

Doesn't "throw[ing someone] under the bus" imply they're not completely at fault? This was not an honest mistake or some above-board disruption of an existing industry.

This was someone willfully, knowingly committing many (hundreds? thousands?) of felonies in the interest of making money and growing the company.

It can also mean (and, IME, usually means) that the person recieving the blame was at fault but that the people doing the blaming are also substantially at fault for the same offense, and are deflecting the blame to a particular target as a scapegoat.

Where do you get "willingly, knowingly committing . . . felonies in the interest of making money . . ."? That's not what any of the articles say.

Inadequate process controls means employees were supposed to follow the law but things slipped through the cracks sometimes. Seems that happened a lot in Washington. But I'm pretty sure most of Zenefits' business is in CA. I would assume the brokers for most sales were licensed properly.

Yeah, I think they needed to signal to pretty much all their constituents they they're cleaning up their act.

Seems like it. From Fortune...

In a memo to employees about the management change, Sachs didn’t dance around the company’s issues when it comes to regulatory compliance.

“The fact is that many of our internal processes, controls, and actions around compliance have been inadequate, and some decisions have just been plain wrong. As a result, Parker has resigned,” writes Sachs. “In order for us to move forward as a company, we cannot seek to hide or downplay the problem.”

http://fortune.com/2016/02/08/zenefits-parker-conrad-resigns...

I think Andrew Mason's departure from Groupon definitely qualifies for "fired", but: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/01/group...

He was definitely fired. Just look at few factors:

* There is basically 0 credit given to the Conrad (the company's founder) in the memo. That's likely because this was a fight and not a mutual decision.

* He's giving up his board seat. When it's merely a case of needing a new CEO, you don't necessarily lose your board seat.

I agree with the sentiment, but probably a more accurate and slightly less bold claim is that the old guy getting a chance to speak means the change was amicable.