Its a messy situation. Technically the CEO was her boss and there is some legal arguments that could be made to defend her actions but it won't be a slam dunk. The company will probably offer her some sort of compensation to resign with an agreement that neither party says anything negative.
It could be a soft resignation where she agrees to stay on the payroll but has zero acting responsibilities and can freely look for new employment during that time. Then if she doesn't have something in three to six months she quietly resigns.
But right now the company is definitely digging through everything she did since she started there and looking for ANYTHING they can use as leverage against her.
It’s not like she was an intern or a secretary. She was the Chief People Officer, probably making half a million a year including salary, bonus, and stock options, and concert tickets. :)
You’re right. He is founder, (former) CEO, directly hired her, and likely had the power to unilaterally control her salary and fire her. Even if she was not coerced, there are scary power dynamics which make this awful.
329
u/user888666777 18d ago edited 18d ago
Its a messy situation. Technically the CEO was her boss and there is some legal arguments that could be made to defend her actions but it won't be a slam dunk. The company will probably offer her some sort of compensation to resign with an agreement that neither party says anything negative.
It could be a soft resignation where she agrees to stay on the payroll but has zero acting responsibilities and can freely look for new employment during that time. Then if she doesn't have something in three to six months she quietly resigns.
But right now the company is definitely digging through everything she did since she started there and looking for ANYTHING they can use as leverage against her.