The fact that they refuse to roll back to the last good state before their process screw-ups and then proceed from there suggests that this is exactly what they're doing. They want to cast this as "Monica was guilty, and (either) we sustained it on review (or) she got better". If they wanted an honest and fair process, they would reinstate me now and then, if they feel it's warranted, go through the removal process -- which would start with specific warnings, so we could avert a worse outcome at that point.
A representative of the company libeled me, and they need to sustain that lie to defend themselves from the predictable consequences of that act. They haven't even asked me if there's room for a settlement there instead. (There is, but they have to be willing to act in good faith too.)
I won't apologize or admit guilt for things I did not do. If that means they refuse to reinstate me, then that strengthens my case against them.
(Also, Sara Chipps is in gross violation of the code of conduct, specifically the parts about bullying and (dis)respectfulness. Just sayin'.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Kafka Trap Ahead?
Date: 2019-10-16 01:59 pm (UTC)A representative of the company libeled me, and they need to sustain that lie to defend themselves from the predictable consequences of that act. They haven't even asked me if there's room for a settlement there instead. (There is, but they have to be willing to act in good faith too.)
I won't apologize or admit guilt for things I did not do. If that means they refuse to reinstate me, then that strengthens my case against them.
(Also, Sara Chipps is in gross violation of the code of conduct, specifically the parts about bullying and (dis)respectfulness. Just sayin'.)