A layoff is getting fired. And lest someone say that "fired" is only for cause, well, the people who are laid off certainly are not chosen at random.

I think one issue is that the answer leads with calling this "wage theft," a term with a specific legal meaning ("Wage theft is the failing to pay wages or provide employee benefits owed to an employee by contract or law" per Wikipedia) that in no way applies to the behavior mentioned in the question, regardless of, for instance, how many pages of Das Kapital one can cite from memory. I don't know much about Belgian law, but I would be surprised if not working hard enough even rose to the level of breach of contract in most jobs, let alone any kind of theft.

Obviously, if there is a message, it should be company-wide, but I think there is a difficult balance to strike, sometimes. Offer consolation about something that isn't traumatizing to someone, and you look like you are characterizing them as fragile or assuming that they care about something just because of their group membership, but ignore something that has widespread import, and you risk looking like you just want to ignore inconvenient events.

@Anthony - The first motivation is certainly laudable, but I am not sure about the second. People are unlikely to think that you identify with the actions of murderous, racist neo-Nazis— unless, of course, you have in some fashion given them reason to wonder otherwise, in which case there would be much bigger things to do to rebuild trust.

@Acccumulation - Rather than anti-Semitic, let's say that they are sympathetic to conservative Christianity, on balance. This case is surely more likely to win than a case brought by a religious Muslim or even Jew, and I would not entirely rule out a new legal test that ended up being more favorable to Christians than others (one mentioning community norms, for instance?)

Groff v DeJoy is undoubtedly very relevant, but it is about Christians who don't want to work on Sunday, not Jews (?) who do not want to work on Saturday. It is not entirely the same issue.

Does your field normally require people to work seven days per week?

So knowing the general field is very important. Working as a professor in-person at a university? Not revealing whether one is cisgender or transgender is going to be very hard. Working as a freelance academic editor for an online company? That could be quite easy.

I think the general field in which one is looking for a job matters here. Obviously, in a remote job, keeping anything secret is easier, so it does matter whether one is a field conducive to that. Some fields almost always ask for references - such as academia - and some very rarely ask. Obviously, the latter are easier, whereas in the former you want to find someone who will not reveal any unwanted personal information. Some jobs almost always require background checks, and some rarely do.

Would this obviously incorrect answer would be better if they were? ;)

Or if they did it in their office with the blinds down, but no one saw them? I mean, setting aside the distinct possibility that they're being dishonest (mentioned in another answer).

What they did was a terrible idea, but considering they were trying to do it in the privacy of their office, after hours, it's less certain they could reasonably have foreseen that someone would see them and be disturbed. Would you be saying the same thing if they'd masturbated in the bathroom? If they'd done it in their car in the company parking lot when no one was around?