throwlastone

Those "facts" are about as relevant to dispelling the allegations as is the "fact" that a table has four legs. The facts are there to support an argument. The fact that only 3 people filed a formal complain isn't strong support of the argument that there wasn't more widespread discrimination, particularly when set against the specific statements of multiple alleged victims that will be published in the story.

Counter whatever evidence is presented with facts. The same way you make any argument. "You can't prove a negative" is mostly an imaginary problem, you don't need to prove anything, you need to convince people that your argument is better.

You respond with specific facts and supporting evidence, not nebulous dismissals, which is how guilty companies respond.

Lies are countered with facts, not generic dismissals. The post is textbook PR pointing to some unspecified inaccuracy which is supposed to cast doubt on the substance of the story. Then self-investigation and self-exoneration. Every company trying to cover up wrong doing writes the same thing.