> It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible.

“Credible” is a far cry from being likely to meet the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard, it literally is just “not implausible”.

> The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less.

Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change.

Preponderance of the evidence would be the standard if Rubin sued Google for wrongful termination, not the standard for evaluating allegations against executives - the latter is entirely up to Google. Rubin would have to convince the jury that he was terminated wrongfully against Google's argument that a credible allegation against senior management is enough to terminate with cause.

> Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change.

GP never suggested that Google hand out jail sentences, just that they shouldn't be giving $90 million severance to Rubin when many employees who got fired for a lot less egregious behavior got nothing.

> Preponderance of the evidence would be the standard if Rubin sued Google for wrongful termination, not the standard for evaluating allegations against executives

Insofar as the issue is whether or not he is entitled to things promised in his employment contract, the standard for evaluation the allegation that he violated provisions of the contract which would trigger forfeiture of those things is necessarily ultimately the exact same standard as would apply in a suit over the contract, since whatever initial decision Google attempts to make is subject to potential suit.

> GP never suggested that Google hand out jail sentences,

The response was to the reference to “crimes” which was not otherwisegermane.

> just that they shouldn't be giving $90 million severance to Rubin when many employees who got fired for a lot less egregious behavior got nothing.

At-will employees are less protected than those with specific employment contracts; executives are usually in the latter category, rank and file employees generally not unless unionized.

Expecting treatment of employees to be the same when they are dissimilarly situated in terms of legal relationship is irrational.

Exactly.

Unfortunately, this is also all too common. But that doesn't make it OK and that doesn't mean that when it happens in our backyard (and not in Hollywood or finance or [insert industry here]), we should stand back and not do anything about it or speak up that it's not alright.