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.