A few observations:
1. If you are using this subject to console war, you are a scumbag. Before you start talking about how this reflects on his employer, maybe you should think about his family, his kids particularly, and whether you think its appropriate to claim that he was being "shielded" somehow.
2. Conflating what amounts to a matter of personal vice, to systemic discrimination is dumber than a box of rocks. These are entirely different offences.
3. Internet vigilantism is generally not a great place to start legally speaking, because any evidence they supplied carries its own baggage in terms of its lawfulness.
4. Skepticism about this, versus skepticism about some blue-check on Twitter airing their grievances about a former employer should be applied differently. In the latter case the complaint is coming from the alleged victim, which means their perspective on events is key to understanding its veracity. So if for instance they make a showy announcement of their personal pronouns in their bio, it tells you a lot about their moral/political complexion, which goes to what degree of infraction they'd find unacceptable. In the case of some individual or group setting out to bait and expose a certain type of criminal, its a whole other level because although the evidence offered is obviously more concrete, the process of its acquisition becomes an actual legal matter. Entrapment via fraud, if always taken at face value would be a powerful tool to smear and/or blackmail a target. i.e. it could be a criminal act in and of itself in the eyes of the law.
5. Please be serious about heavy stuff like this.