I don't think that link says the fired researchers are getting job offers? The only mention of job offers I see is Mitchell's tweet, which from the context seems to be about colleagues of hers currently at Google getting offers elsewhere. Basically she thinks there will be more resignations because more people are just now getting alternative offers.

I couldn't find anything online about Gebru or Mitchell actually getting offers, although IIRC Gebru said she has no interest in industry right now anyway.

>Has Google provided any evidence of substance regarding the exfiltration of data?

from your link

"... included the exfiltration of confidential business-sensitive documents and private data of other employees,” Google said in a statement to Axios about Mitchell’s firing."

if Google is making such a statement in such a public way and without evidence, the employee i'd suppose has a good chance of a settlement of a lifetime.

Proving defamation is actually quite hard. You have to prove both the untruthfulness of the statement made and prove that you have sustained monetary damages from it. If you manage to win, you will still likely be on the hook for your own legal fees. Finally, you will never recover the time sunk into this endeavor. For most people, it's simply not worth it.

Monetary damages from a company that just fired you is quite straightforward. And it’s quite simple to prove no data was exfiltrated. So through discovery, get email and network traffic, show no data sent inappropriately.

This does seem like it’s straightforward, if valid. It may take time, but the longer it drags on, the higher the monetary damages.

This is also something where you retain an attorney and go about your life. It’s not like I take an active role in a defamation lawsuit.

Of course it’s not simple, but I think GP’s post is right in that were Google’s public statements wrong, it would be a big settlement. Thus it seems to me that they know what they said and make accurate statements.