• aidan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t know the situation, but of course the CEO will say that, whether she’d be punished or not

    • Chee_Koala@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      5 months ago

      This is probably 100% true, but in the article it is stated that the defendant agreed with it during trial.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I assume that the defense would demand evidence of that without just accepting it because it’s a pretty big point in the prosecutions case. They would probably check to see if something like that was in the employment contract, and presumably it was otherwise they would have objected when it was stated.

        • agitatedpotato@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Companies are smarter than to leave paper trails of things like retaliation or manipulation of employees for taking days off. Not saying it was actually happening, but if it was I wouldn’t expect there to be hard evidence anyway. The learned from having to fight Unions in court.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            5 months ago

            But again it would be in the defenses interest to massively investigate that claim. If there was any doubt that that was true it could be used as a defense.