The Lionbridge case is still going on. In the most recent court case, the company admitted that it had not checked information given to it concerning their claims for dismissing unionist Jakub G. The company accused him of stealing and leaking confidential information. The company admitted im court that it did not check evidence which proved the information in question was not confidential and that they considered it "irrelevant". Nor did they read the e-mails they claim that Jakub sent from work which they claimed contained confidential information. Clearly if they didn't even check these things, the company was fulling aware that this reason for dismissal was complete bullshit and nothing but a pretext for firing the unionist.
If they didn't check the information supplied to them which proved Jakub's innocence, what did they check? In court the HR director testified how she "googled" Jakub's name and found information about his political activity. Apparently this information, which is totally irrelevant to the former employee's work and to the case, was more relevant to the company than the facts and even the law.