It may be "baffling" to you. I can't help that.The company did not "surveil" him. To think otherwise and publicize that your interpretive skills are such is baffling. I think he will get his job back or a nice settlement equal to his career's income....
His crime is exposing the sacred shield to the world. Any "lockroom" lawyer can get his the $$ he deserves. I would not be surprised if he hasn't been approached by dozens of lockroomers..
To the point....again the result is the same....."surveillance" is/was applied. No? Was he not fired for "video" evidence? Don't be obtuse.
If that "evidence" is thrown out(whatever that means)....there is no case? Considering of course that the proverbial horse is out of the barn.
The point: What was he fired for? Exactly now. I've stated that the "language" is nebulous enough that just about anything can be construed as "not in the best interest of the Company".
I may be "publicly" thinking.....are you not doing the same? There are people right now reading your comments and thinking you should be hanged right beside the perp. To think he should get his job back with pay....just baffling....see?