It's not a pretense when she broke a serious rule. Whether or not she claims she didn't, google has determined she did. So therefore it's clearly not retaliation. That's the default position. Now, there would be a high burden of proof for her to claim it was a conspiracy and it really was related to union organizing. That she did not in fact violate a rule (based on googles own interpretation). Good luck! Unless she finds some incriminating emails or gets an executive to give extremely damaging testimony, she's toast.
No, history has shown about 95% of the time employers prevail in actions like this. The burden of proof is really high for the employee, and the company has plenty of money for lawyers. It can simply run out the clock too. So yeah, 23 years from now after the ex-engineer spends 2.6 million on legal fees, she might win her job back and lost wages.
Furthermore, google has a really easy time with "selective enforcement" They can show that people violating security rules and abusing administrative rights are always fired. Now, she can argue she didn't do this, but because of the nature of our legal system, it will be extremely hard to explain. I main, disgruntled employee abusing security? Whoever heard of such a thing. The civil judge will probably help google refer her to the FBI!
Saying that selective enforcement is hard to prove is different from saying it doesn't matter, which you were originally claiming, and which is what I was disputing.
>They can show that people violating security rules and abusing administrative rights are always fired.
Yes, that agrees with what I was saying: if every message thusly inserted resulted in a firing, then it would not be fair to say she got fired "for notifying employees of their right to organize".
