He seems to allude that not all the facts are out, so it's hard to tell if this decision was a knee jerk reaction or a reasonable response.
For this guy that reason doesn't apply, and he doesn't have any supervisory responsibility. I can't see why on the facts available that this would have happened, and I can't be help think there is something more.
I mean, with Eich we knew the exact details of why he was shoved-out/quit. We know the exact reason, there is no mystery. With Garfield, we have one side saying that Garfield is a victim, and another side saying "Well, yeah, but we know something you don't, and we're not talking about it."
Which, in itself, is enough to make me highly suspicious about what they say. Or don't say.