Chapter 4 - THE PROMOTION PACKET
Meridian’s internal investigation began with dates.
Hart Studio won Harbor One design competition in February.
Emily’s concept sketches were created from December through January.
Lucas saw some when Emily visited the family mansion in March to help with bills.
His promotion packet was submitted in June.
Therefore:
he could not have influenced the winning competition through those copied sketches.
Good.
That eliminated one frightening possibility.
But why include them?
Lucas was competing against two colleagues for senior director.
One criticism in prior review:
excellent client relationships;
weak design literacy;
limited cross-functional contribution.
Lucas wanted to look more creatively engaged.
He scanned three sketches from Emily’s portfolio while she was out buying groceries.
He removed her signature from two.
On one, part remained.
Then inserted them in packet under:
“Concept ideation examples — Harbor One.”
He added a paragraph:
Worked informally with design stakeholders to explore early massing, public-realm activation, and atrium geometry.
False.
He had discussed none with Meridian architects.
HR reviewers assumed the drawings came from internal whiteboard sessions.
Nobody checked because promotion packets were not project records.
Jonathan’s CEO file contained printed copies only because he was final interviewer.
The rain photo caused him to connect names.
Internal IT then found Lucas emailed scans from personal account to work email.
Subject:
H1 concepts.
No source.
Meridian counsel interviewed Emily.
She supplied original files with creation metadata.
Clear authorship.
Lucas admitted scanning.
His defense:
“I never said I drew them.”
Counsel:
“You removed her signature.”
Lucas:
“To make the page cleaner.”
That answer damaged credibility.
He also wrote “my concept work” in one email to mentor.
Direct.
Could Meridian fire for this?
Likely under integrity policy.
But investigation continued for proportionality.
Had he received promotion or bonus based on false packet?
No promotion yet.
No financial gain completed.
Had sketches been shared outside company?
No.
No client deception.
So misconduct serious but bounded.
Jonathan Reed’s anger was professional, not paternal.
He told HR:
“Do not fire him because he was cruel to his sister. Decide based on company facts.”
This protected process.
The social media post itself violated Meridian’s code only if connected to harassment, discrimination, threats, or reputational harm? It was personal. But public post naming a colleague? Emily was external partner. Lucas mocked a key vendor principal. He didn't name Hart Studio. Still reputational. HR included as conduct issue, but primary was dishonesty.
The fifth chapter would explore the post.
It had spread because Lucas’s account identified Meridian in his bio.
Commenters connected:
Meridian employee humiliates Harbor One architect.
That created external reputational risk.
Emily publicly said nothing.
She refused to become viral revenge story.
Her silence changed what Meridian had to do:
issue a narrow statement about internal review without exploiting her identity.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
May you like
Meridian’s counsel also interviewed the two colleagues Lucas named as participants in his supposed Harbor One ideation sessions. Neither remembered such sessions. One remembered Lucas asking what “massing” meant months after Hart Studio had already won the project.
Those interviews further undermined the idea that the copied sketches reflected real collaborative authorship.
