Another AFM-related blog has woken up, after a long rest, to the goings-on in Los Angeles, and has reached some conclusions of wrongdoing already. I won't quote from the relevant blog post, but essentially the (anonymous) author suggests that Terri Cadiente was placed on administration leave, rather than being fired, because Tom Lee directed her conduct and doesn't want her to say so.
That's a possible explanation, I suppose, but not the most likely one. Administrative leave is not an alternative to termination, as Wikipedia explains:
Usually, an employee is placed on administrative leave when a constituent (student, parent, patient, suspect, victim, etc.) makes an allegation of misconduct against them. Many institutions choose to remove the employee from the situation while investigating such allegations.
Placing an employee facing credible allegations of misconduct on administrative leave would be the correct course of action whether the employer wanted to retain the employee or terminate her. Not placing an accused employee on leave would risk serious legal liability for the employer should the allegations be true, especially if the conduct were to be repeated. But firing an AFM employee facing credible allegations without a serious, good faith investigation would risk a wrongful termination lawsuit against the AFM.
The only conclusion that can reasonably be drawn at this time, if indeed Cadiente's administrative leave is related to the instrusion into Local 47's computers - and that is only supposition at this point - is that there is credible evidence linking her to what could credibly be considered an unauthorized intrusion. "Credible evidence" is not proof; it's merely a necessary but insufficient condition for proof.