> In his whistleblower complaint, Baig is requesting reinstatement, back pay and compensatory damages, along with potential regulatory enforcement action against the company.

If the company is so bad (it is), why does he want back?!

'Just pay me the salaries I "missed", and keep them coming.' The regulatory action is just "potential".

I have no sympathy for Meta, but this guy...

▲

saagarjha 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Companies are not relationships where once they're your ex they are never worth interacting with ever again. If you are doing good work and then HR pushes you out, then it is reasonable to sue the company to get them to pay you damages and then go back to doing what you were before with the protection that they won't do it again.

▲

sudahtigabulan 3 days ago | parent [-]

The point I tried to make was not that he should be resentful about being kicked out, but that he doesn't really care that Meta is unethical and endangers billions.

Even if nothing changes (the regulatory action is optional), he's happy to contribute (he insists, in fact). Even among people who don't want him there.

	▲	mapotofu 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		The points you’re making are personal attacks about the whistleblower. They don’t focus on the substance of the accusations (insecurity). Instead, they focus on your idea of their career motivations and their personality.

▲

Nevermark 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

He got fired unjustly. For trying to do something good. (His position.)

Any full remedy would require his position is reinstated.

If he wins the right to be reinstated, he will be happy to negotiate a payment instead. He is made whole.

What about any of that lacks sensible motives?

▲

sudahtigabulan 3 days ago | parent [-]

Nothing, but there's something in your comment that was not in the article:

> he will be happy to negotiate a payment instead.

This, indeed, sounds way more normal than wanting to keep working for the evil company, and in a toxic environment.

It hasn't occurred to me that one can change their mind and choose a different compensation after the court decision like that.

	▲	Nevermark 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, it isn't stated because that point is moot until he is awarded remedy. You don't negotiate with what you don't have yet. But the idea that he or they would actually want to resume working together is beyond unlikely. They will be happy to pay for him to go away, if that's the only way they can legally get rid of him.

▲

skybrian 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Maybe so he can quit properly? I wonder how these lawsuits work? Maybe a lawyer would know.