  > Baillie claims he explained the reason why he had taken the drug but was investigated by Netflix. On March 18, 2026 a company investigator brought the incident up, “in a manner suggesting suspicion of recreational drug use,” the suit reads.

So the nominal issue is recreational drug use rather than ketamine therapy. It's also not clear that he was fired for the therapy itself. And I doubt Netflix would fire someone just for therapeutic (or even recreational) drug use unless it has a negative impact on the workplace performance. If it was proper & legal therapy (e.g, https://www.betterucare.com/), Netflix wouldn't fire a person since it would have positive impact on their workplace performance. But if Netflix fired an employee for a valid cause, I would expect the employee to try to counter with any option that would get them a severance or settlement.

It's likely that we're not hearing the full story and the news sites are just writing clickbait articles from one-sided excerpts of the lawsuit that the ex-employee filed.

▲ wahern 44 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Given he made $1 million+ per year as an executive, it's possible they needed a pretense to fire him "for cause" under a contract that otherwise stipulated some sizeable severance greater than the cost of litigation and settlement.

▲ hack1312 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Did you miss he received the therapy under medical supervision and Netflix’s attorney flat out admitted “the ketamine therapy issue has factored into the termination”.

▲

ribosometronome 43 minutes ago | parent [-]

Did you miss that that's according to the one sided exceprt from a lawsuit an ex-employee filed?

▲

tomnipotent 21 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Did you miss that a company attorney acknowledged "the ketamine therapy issue has factored into the termination?"

	▲	ribosometronome 17 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Only according to the lawsuit filed by the fired party.

▲

hack1312 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

I notice you’re not calling them a liar.

▲

ribosometronome 10 minutes ago | parent [-]

I've no idea what happened. Treating allegations in a lawsuit as undeniable true or "flat out admissions" is a bad idea, though. Doing that would have you believing that Craig Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto, after all, he claimed in a lawsuit he is.

	▲	hack1312 a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Do you think the fired employee’s lawyer would have included it if they couldn’t prove it?