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).
Not sure why you're being downvoted - I was just about to write the same thing. People write stupid things on social media. I expect tabloids to call them out on it. But I expect Bloomberg BusinessWeek's reporting to understand the distinction between psychological context to an accusation, and unrelated character assassination.
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).