They rejected her proposal to discuss an end date and imposed immediate termination. You can argue it was justified. You can argue California law should be different. But the title states a legal fact.
You linked to a very long legalistic webpage which I don't have time to read; please link to a concise neutral reference that specifically points out she was fired because I've googled and can't find anything other than biased opinions either way.
The fact remains she threatened them with resignation; using words like "proposing for discussion" runs the risk of portraying her as an innocent victim in this for anybody who hasn't read about the original case.
For those people also, the title remains opinionated without a clear reference to a formal description of the exit that is generally accepted.
Legal guidelines are legalistic. I provided a concise neutral summary. And you have time to read if you have time to argue.
"Proposed" and "discuss" are neutral. "Threatened" and "bluff" are loaded. And anyone this far into the comments should have read about the original case.
I'm not a lawyer and have no intention of deciding the legal definitions of this case myself, I look to those who actually know what they are talking about to do so. I note you still haven't provided a link to anybody clarifying it in a reasonably neutral way; I suspect there isn't one without bias (either way).
Nobody "proposes" resignation in such circumstances to an employer unless they are fully in battle. And according to this article she acknowledged that herself:
I actually know what I'm talking about. Some other people here actually know what they're talking about. I'm not going to waste my time finding more links when you can just call them biased or too legalistic.
You quoted a reporter paraphrasing Gebru. And "proposed" doesn't mean everything was peaceful.
I actually know what I'm talking about. Some other people here actually know what they're talking about.
Considering there is a variety of opinions here on the subject (including many who would reject my impartial take and fervently take the opposing position to you and claim it was entirely her fault), I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that only those who agree with you know what they are talking about.
Anyway, in the absence of clarity on the event itself, I'm happy to agree to disagree with you on what has been established - which rather emphasises my original point about the title...
Somewhat loaded title, as it implies a previous one was fired, which was not at all established as the case.