>>43761026>That's not why she was terminated>The reason for termination was clarified as having been sending her communication with her manager to a third party. That breached NDA.>Everything else in that statement was just additional information and corpo-speak to make it easier for the intended audience to digest her terminationWrong. Pic related is the termination.
>With respect to the above, we were able to confirm that she engaged in acts that: violated her contract by leaking information that she acquired from the company as well as communication over SNS, both of which she has a responsibility to protect; and caused the company to suffer reputational damage, such as by publicizing falsehoods to various related parties. As a result, we, as a company, have determined that it has become difficult to continue managing and supporting her and have elected to make this decision.Notice the clauses of the supporting reasons, with a separating semi-colon? You are completely skipping the 2nd one.
>violated her contract by leaking information that she acquired from the company as well as communication over SNS, both of which she has a responsibility to protect>; and>Caused the company to suffer reputational damage, such as by publicizing falsehoods to various related parties.Notice the statement regarding publicizing falsehoods to third parties as a reason separate from the leaking? Now you're trying to do it too.
