>>I personally think the accuser acted very very wrong.
>>
>>Hugo,
>>
>>I personally think you'd have to search far and wide to find anyone who disagrees.
>>
>>Now, let me toss something ELSE into the mix. Suppose (since everyone here is playing the hypothetical game, I figure I'll take a turn, whilst those in possession of facts decide to come forward) that one of the accusers made a public statement, shortly after the initial incident, to the effect that he/she received an apology from the 'employee', and that the 'accuser' considered the matter closed.
>
>Then why would the accuser go to such lengths to have the employee fired after the apology?

Well, now there's an interesting statement that may change my feelings about this. Up until now, I was under the impression that person B ratted on person A to person A's employer. Now it appears that person B went beyond that and went to great lengths to have person A fired. Which is correct? Not that I don't still think person B is a jerk, but it's nice to know what actually transpired.

>
>>Also....a question for Jay - how did the 'accuser' know where the 'employee' worked? How was this information obtained? (of course, it's a rhetorical question)
>
>We're all geeks here, no big surprise how that was done. It's already been said in the scenario that the unethical behavior was indirectly related to work, but would not have mattered if the acuser hadn't been such a butthead.