Writing on a whiteboard is not defacing property unless they didn't use the correct markers and stained the board. It seems like there is something more to it than that.
Your mistake is assuming what that means rather than inferring it from what's actually described as the actions. It's not your fault, but it's wrong to assume that the article writer is unbiased in this situation given that it likely got a corporate spokesperson to comment on it. I don't know that the article writer is incentivized to change much as part of that.
The quote I quoted is literally from Google. The author just repeated the quote. It has nothing to do with the author's potential bias.
If HR/PR lied about defacing property it would open them up to a defamation lawsuit. The entire purpose of HR is to protect the company from lawsuits which is why they don't usually make up fake reasons for firing people. They just won't give specifics instead of defaming a person publicly.
> If HR/PR lied about defacing property it would open them up to a defamation lawsuit. The entire purpose of HR is to protect the company from lawsuits which is why they don't usually make up fake reasons for firing people. They just won't give specifics instead of defaming a person publicly.
"Defacing property" doesn't have as strict a definition as you think it does, as an example: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/morrisonco/latest/morr... <- Writing on a whiteboard wall would qualify under that definition even if it's not what you think it is.
The fact that it comes from Google directly should make you more suspicious not less.
