If you read the letter it has a deposition transcript with her admitting it. Page 19.

"Munira was forced to admit under oath in deposition, several months after my termination, that she falsified her educational record on her resume to Amazon and all her previous employers - claiming to have earned a Bachelors and Masters degree in Computer Science from Stanford when in fact she earned no degrees at all."

Also an interesting commentary quote from the page 21 of the letter:

"And in fact, even after finding out about Munira’s lies regarding her educational background and other issues I raised before my termination, Jeff Blackburn represented in his deposition that Munira was given a promotion, even though according to Amazon’s policies, falsification of personnel records is a Tier 1 offense likely resulting in immediate termination"

The letter reads awesomely, totally like a good book.

This is made stranger by the fact the Jeff Blackburn says he knew she hadn't completed the degrees, and hired her anyways. And he went to Stanford. For an MBA. Honestly this looks really bad for Amazon, partly because it's obvious how expected and systemic this behavior is

> At the end of the day. You should do what you need to do to maximize free cash flow for the device. Do what you need to do to make more money

"I know she hasn't completed it yet" - this guys words are 100% weasel.

Well, yes, we assume you would be aware that she hadn't yet completed a course (her Masters) she couldn't enroll in yet because she had not completed her undergraduate.

This is something my step-daughter could understand, especially with her education as a lawyer (not yet completed, as she is seven years old).

Maybe her profile has been changed now but it's only showing that she's following Stanford and in a Stanford group - There's nothing in the experience and education sections at all.

In Google+ it says "attended Stanford University" https://plus.google.com/109990231058522395347/posts (so maybe a Stanford dropout?).

Obiously, the letter mentions that she had "not yet" a degree. So, i think it's likely she dropped out or sort of paused her studies, whatever...

It seems like she claimed that she had both a Bachelors and Masters degree from Stanford when indeed she did not have both. Can she be pursuing a Master's degree when she had not completed a Bachelors?

If she were a Stanford student, she could have been in the coterminal BS/MS program for Comp Sci yet dropped out before getting either. The nice thing about the coterm program is your ability to get classified as a grad student early (once you get 180 credits) and start paying your way through college using research and teaching assistantships, which provide tuition and stipend.

I can't speak for Stanford, but I pursued a BS and MS simultaneously at Cal Poly. Cal Poly's computer science department has a 4+1 program that lets you start taking graduate courses while you're finishing your undergraduate degree. The program also drops the senior project requirement for the BS and combines it with the master's thesis required for the MS.

Both of those things are false (she said as much in the deposition), but "attended Stanford" could mean that she dropped out before going for a Bachelor's degree, so may not be a lie.

Hey, maybe she's still trying to pass CS106X. That's a tough one, give her a break!

Google+ not being actively maintained by someone? I'm shocked I tell you...

It seems I didn't look thoroughly. "Stanford Alumni" was listed in one of her groups, and Stanford itself was listed in the "follow" section on her page - sorry, you're right!

independent of the facts, shall we not start doxing individuals here? this isn't 4chan.

Does finding a public linkedin profile count as doxing? I don't know much about the topic, but I was under the impression that there was more to it than that. it was a black-hat hacker thing, that it involved getting past some kind of access control.

This definitely isn't doxing.

Doxing is when you find very personal information, such as place of residence. In can involve information about the workspace, Linked-in profile or so forth - but only in the case that the victim is operating under a pseudonym and have not disclosed their true identity themselves.

This isn't doxxing. Doxxing would be if we posted her address, po box, mailing address, etc.

What we are doing here is calling someone out on their bullshit in a public profile.

Why are you down-voting this person? They are not trolling. They're only advising a little restraint.

Honestly, calling this doxing is pretty accurate. Before that user posted her LinkedIn profile, she was an anonymous figure in this dispute which, frankly, was all that was relevant to HN. Now, through LinkedIn, she will potentially receive hate mail and, with an identifying image, is more likely to be pinpointed on other platforms which may reveal more personal information about her.

People should remember that there is a lot about this situation that they don't know. This man who was fired from Amazon may have a legitimate grievance and he may not. Things might look one way when described on paper, but could have seemed quite different in real life. We could be (and probably are) missing out on a lot of important details that only eye-witnesses could be aware of.

> Before that user posted her LinkedIn profile, she was an anonymous figure in this dispute which, frankly, was all that was relevant to HN.

How was she anonymous when she was named in the article? Her LinkedIn profile is literally the first thing that comes up if you google her.