The problem I see with these accounts is that as a "former" employee you necessarily have a bias. Maybe you got fired, maybe you got burned out, but I'm not surprised you are angry at them and it's hard to weigh exactly the value of your opinion.
Fowler had specific accusations of fact. Either the "got told six times it was a first offense" thing happened or it didn't. Either the leather jacket incident happened or it didn't. Uber can easily claim these things aren't true if they aren't.
I have absolutely no insight into the actual case. If I was into gambling I'd bet that the allegations against uber are true.
But. From experience I can tell you that it is absolutely not trivial for a company to simply claim a given allegation is false. Even if the company is correct and truthful about it. With a tiny kernel of truth to otherwise false allegations, enough bias will give clear answers and the public verdict becomes all the more damning.
So as much as it may be appropriate to damn uber in this case, please don't do so simpy because they didn't go for "a good offense is the best defense" here.
