First off, the article you posted doesn’t actually outline any actions by Apple. It’s terrible that employees feel the need to go to lengths to conceal perfectly legal activity and you are absolutely correct that it is a terrible sign of our society that they have (good) reason to believe they would be retaliated against.

On the January 6th note, I agree as well. Our legal system is largely based on people acting in good-faith, and when they do not, the wheels of justice move extremely slow. I’ve dealt with cases in my professional career that last well over a decade when actors feel the need to drag on proceedings.

But you have moved the goalposts of the discussion completely. Your original comment was that LS would not be able to raise a legal challenge in the hypothetical because C9 has a significant deal of resources. But that’s simply not the case. Firing an employee with exemplary performance who is extremely well-respected in their field, the day after discussion unionization, is the most clear cut example of retaliation I’ve ever heard and that includes hypotheticals raised while getting my law degree. Any firm on the face of the planet would represent him on contingency because there would be no way for C9 to raise an affirmative defense high enough to justify the adverse action.