Oh wow. That is an excellent point. Thank you anonymous commenter. You're right; if the process does not afford any oversight, if it's just "apply, they cogitate, answer comes out" without anything like a hearing, then they could use a corrupt process to "legitimize" my firing -- "she applied, we reviewed, we denied -- guilty!". I will add this to the list of things to discuss with my lawyer.
Since this new process discussion started I've been pushing for: reverse the bad decision (which they admit did not follow due process), and then follow their new removal process if they think it's still warranted. That would be much more fair, and now I think it's the only chance at fairness.
I can totally believe that people evil enough to have done what they did, including willful defamation that they have refused to retract, are also evil enough to set the kind of trap you describe. Definitely food for thought.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Please be careful Monica
Date: 2019-10-17 08:22 pm (UTC)Since this new process discussion started I've been pushing for: reverse the bad decision (which they admit did not follow due process), and then follow their new removal process if they think it's still warranted. That would be much more fair, and now I think it's the only chance at fairness.
I can totally believe that people evil enough to have done what they did, including willful defamation that they have refused to retract, are also evil enough to set the kind of trap you describe. Definitely food for thought.