I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to work there anymore. It was also a resignation in sense she didn't want to work there anymore.
You're arguing that it's a bold faced law to describe a letter of resignation as such if there is not a specific date. You haven't shown this is true in California law much less English. And if it's true in any sense it's not a lie.
If I went to my boss and said "I don't wanna work here anywhere, I'll check my calendar to find a convenient last day". And they respond with don't bother go home you'll get your two weeks.
You're argument is if someone described that event to someone else as me resigning they'd be a big ol liar?
That doesn't seem right to me.
They said her employment was terminated immediately. So no more pay.
Gebru was able and willing to continue working at the time Google terminated her employment. So it was involuntary in California law and English.[1]
"Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water.
To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fact very well and therefore lied to the press about the circumstances.
You even use the phrase "Gebru firing" in your first post in this particular thread.