nor am i defending the actions described in the article...

but this seems very flimsy.

"we talked to people who said he hit them!

...but we can't name their names or offer any proof."

i mean no complaints, no criminal charges, nothing really to substantiate any of the allegations except this article and that's the means used to terminate him?

i dunno, seems hasty.

maybe more will be exposed to justify the response - but as it stands, i think a good lawyer would tear this shit to shreds in a civil suit.