If she didn't do it and they don't have good reason to believe she did, then she could and should easily win a large lawsuit against them, since they have publicly accused her of illegal activity. That is a hugely more risky move than just saying that someone underperformed or was let go for other reasons, and knowing how heavily pre-lawyered everything that Google does is, I highly doubt they would publicize something like that without having evidence to back it up.
Maybe I'm wrong, but afaik she has yet to deny doing exactly what they've claimed. My guess is that in her mind she was doing something totally reasonable by trying to dig up old emails that she remembered that she thought would help her friend's case against Google, and feels that even if that's against the letter of her agreements with the company it should be morally okay. Which is fine as a moral argument, but you're still gonna get fired.
"Maybe I'm wrong, but afaik she has yet to deny doing exactly what they've claimed."
That seems like the natural thing to do if you feel like you may already be in the process of being fired. I assume a lawyer would advise you to be quiet about it, right?
> If she didn't do it and they don't have good reason to believe she did, then she could and should easily win a large lawsuit against them, since they have publicly accused her of illegal activity.
Despite the popular refrain of “truth is an absolute defense” in the context of defamation law, in US law falsity is an element of the tort, which means that the plaintiff bears the burden of making a prima facie case that the accusation was false by at least some evidence, the defendant doesn't bear the initial burden of showing that it is true or reasonably believed.
Also, there is a very good chance, since Mitchell was publicly involved in the controversy over Google's firing of Timnit Gebru before Google made the accusation, that Mitchell would be found to be a public figure within the context of Google's alleged defamation, which would heighten the requirement from falsity plus harm to proving actual malice.
Also, if Google is lying, they almost certainly also spent over a month building a constructed evidence trail and doctoring records to support the lie between the very public lockout and the actual firing.
So, no, winning a defamation case wouldn't be easy, wouldn't be quick, and wouldn't fail to be extremely expensive in litigation costs.
Plus, every step Google takes on this is just resulting in more of the remaining people in the affected area of the company going public with problems, and it’s not like Mitchell seems to be hurting for alternative employment so as likely the only value of winning the lawsuit would be a PR poke in Google's eye that they are getting on their own anyway...why bother?
The rule number 1 in letting people go: never go on record why you did that. There's a good reason for that - you're opening yourself up for lawsuits. Google violated that rule in a big way by making such a public and damaging statement. You bet they can back it up.
> And, it's not a court of law. At best, it's "allegedly moved files when they weren't supposed to".
Are you operating under the assumption that nothing should ever be stated as a fact unless determined by a court of law? Because that's not how I think of things.
(I do agree that Google is a biased actor here. If I hear that Margaret Mitchell disputes moving files in contravention of company policy I will give her the benefit of the doubt. But my default assumption will be that everyone is telling the truth about basic facts.)
According to Google.
Remember, an entity that has a reason and a justification to do what it wants will manufacture whatever evidence it needs to do that.
And, it's not a court of law. At best, it's "allegedly moved files when they weren't supposed to".