>>No, what I know came to me privately and I think it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the details here. But as I said, if it's the case I think it is, Jay's original description of the situation is misleading at best.
>
>Really. Misleading? Doesn't change the facts of the assumption.

Assumption has no facts. It has assumed conditions.

Now let's see what dramatis personae do we have here:

the employee, who screwed something up, (seemingly?) unrelated to the job, but had a help from a friend who made the matter related and the employee henceforth unrelated

the friend who plays the diplomatic role (qualifies - suck up, tread down) of liaison officer

the employer, who seems eager to display indignation under any pretext, and to help the bottom line by firing people as often as possible

...um, any positive characters?