Chapter 16 - Victor’s defense
Victor’s arbitration over compensation and termination rights began before his employment status was finally decided.
He had not yet been fired.
Paid leave continued.
His contract defined cause narrowly:
Fraud.
Willful misconduct.
Material breach.
Dishonesty causing significant harm.
Repeated policy violation after notice.
His lawyers argued:
Sarah dispute was nine years old.
Current wage practices were decentralized.
Victor’s emails reflected business urgency, not intent to violate law.
Board approved labor targets.
Counsel did not issue formal stop order.
Crown Bridge relationship was disclosed historically.
Bonus metrics were set by compensation committee.
Strong defenses.
Then independent counsel presented:
Email pausing restorations until financing close.
Instruction to focus Arthur on control breach.
Failure to correct Arthur’s belief about $186,400.
Current compliance warnings repeatedly deferred.
Regional manager testimony:
“We understood Victor wanted losses kept off corporate P&L if stores could absorb them.”
Did he say use tips?
“No.”
There.
No invention.
Then former CFO Neil Porter.
“Did Victor tell you Sarah stole?”
“No.”
“Did he understand Arthur believed Sarah caused a $186,400 loss?”
“Yes.”
“Did you correct Arthur?”
“No.”
“Why?”
Neil looked ashamed.
“I wanted the financing closed too.”
There.
Responsibility spread.
Neil had left.
No corporate sanction now.
But the historical story no longer had one villain and one innocent room full of witnesses.
Sarah was wronged.
Victor manipulated.
I chose convenience.
Neil stayed quiet.
Legal counsel advised without escalating.
The board asked too little.
Systems fail socially before they fail numerically.
Then Victor testified:
“Sarah was a gifted accountant and a terrible executive.”
Sarah laughed when she heard.
“Maybe true.”
He continued:
“She believed being morally correct gave her authority she did not have.”
Also partly true.
Then:
“Arthur overreacted.”
I did.
Then:
“I did not make him fire his daughter.”
That was absolutely true.
I did that.
My lawyer asked whether I wanted to attend remaining arbitration.
May you like
“No.”
For once, my presence was not necessary.
