While in theory you may be completely correct, please remember that SETTLEMENTS DO NOT signify GUILT per se. You do not know what happened during the mediation process. There is a chance that while AIG conceded that there were improprieties, it could’ve also shown in the mediation that some of the charges this guy brought were going to be completely blown out of the water by AIG’s attorneys. Hence, why this man may have agreed to a settlement instead of going to trial and receiving a “half-verdict” of sorts. It could be that in light of AIG’s defense this man could’ve ended up with NOTHING except legal bills!
We just DON’T KNOW. The only ones who could make a determination are the players involved, and the lawyers who came to the settlement agreement.
The guy was told agree to a new contract (breaking old one) or you are terminated. He did not agree and was terminated. How can that be misconstrued?