If they have the conviction to believe their investigation led to removing him being the right choice, why can't they stand by that legally in a court case? I know there is that fear in practice, but thats what there proper investigations should cover.
This situation still would of created the Aldrich situation. I never got the attitude the issue was him not being fired 5 days after it was found out vs a month later. The issue is that he was fired quietly. That's how serial abuse perpetrators get created and pushed on and on like Aldrich was.
Same issue with the Skalde/Donatelli Penguins AHL issue. But Donatelli went and was a HC in Germany, then before this season began he was replaced because it was known about his assault accusations. Donatelli just "resigned" from the AHL Penguins, but that allowed him to get another HC job where he could of abused his power to assault someone else. This to me always was the big issue they need to solve, not just fire a guy quickly and quietly.