Even if he resigned, he resigned under duress. This wasn't an "I'm spending time with my family and kids" resignation/firing; it was a "oh shit we're screwed, we need to mitigate the damage and throw Parker under the bus to save the company". It's very likely he was a big part of the resignation discussions.
Doesn't "throw[ing someone] under the bus" imply they're not completely at fault? This was not an honest mistake or some above-board disruption of an existing industry.
This was someone willfully, knowingly committing many (hundreds? thousands?) of felonies in the interest of making money and growing the company.
It can also mean (and, IME, usually means) that the person recieving the blame was at fault but that the people doing the blaming are also substantially at fault for the same offense, and are deflecting the blame to a particular target as a scapegoat.
Where do you get "willingly, knowingly committing . . . felonies in the interest of making money . . ."? That's not what any of the articles say.
Inadequate process controls means employees were supposed to follow the law but things slipped through the cracks sometimes. Seems that happened a lot in Washington. But I'm pretty sure most of Zenefits' business is in CA. I would assume the brokers for most sales were licensed properly.
