I don't see why the author included details about the defendant writing "muslim pig" in a text message and saying that another executive looked like a penis. These details have nothing to do with the case. The only purpose they serve is to defame the defendant.

It's unethical to write such an opinionated piece covering a case like this, in which the facts are just starting to emerge. Let's keep it objective until the evidence is clear. Otherwise we risk perpetuating a witch hunt (of both the defendant and the plaintiff).