The only worse choice for CEO is Chambers. She had a valid reason to just fire his ass. If he's not willing to do what he's told to do, then he's not willing to do his job. It looks to me like the board wanted to get rid of him for reasons that had nothing to do with cancer. Why reference the cancer at all?

I have the feeling the only reason they didn't just get rid of him was because of the cancer diagnosis. Trying to be "nice". But even if the cancer was the reason for not just cutting him loose, there's no reason to bring it up.

How does the CEO not know referencing the cancer would expose them to liability? Did they not sit down with their lawyers before sitting down with him?

Now they're probably going to lose in court and be forced to pay him off.

They should fire Chambers.