In the best case, firing a very expendable recent hire for a good reason is much less painful than getting rid of an important engineer, or even HR and top management. Fixing the problem would require company-destroying purges.
No, the best case would be actually fixing the problem. Heaven forbid we "get rid of an important engineer", when, literally, that's the exact problem that got Uber into this mess. Multiple times complaints were met with "well, he's a high performer, so try to stay on his good side, and well, if he gives you a negative review, we can't do anything about that".
If removing the problem would destroy the company, that's a much bigger issue in itself.
I meant "the best case" as the morally best possibility in which Uber is least evil: neglecting the serious behaviour problems, but at least firing someone who deserved to be fired.
They might also have fired an innocent, or a conniving expendable employee, to improve their image. Today's commotion about their CEO insulting a humble Uber driver suggests a ruthless PR campaign of distraction and damage control.
