Although I usually like your answers, I find this answer a bit hard-nosed for academia. Academia used to be a refuge for less adapted characters with a particular set of special skills. Now it is increasingly absorbing habits from industry that favour streamlined and smoothened characters. Rather be smooth and professional than rough and ingenious. Now, while bullying should definitely not be glossed over (and I never tolerated it myself), there is a difference between giving someone a serious talking-to and kicking them out. The latter should be reserved for very serious offenses. Otherwise

Otherwise, you end up with a culture of fear where everyone looks over their shoulder before speaking. In Europe we have had enough experience with regimes that threatened you with repressions when you spoke the wrong things. True, this prof just lost a job, but for the majority people in these regimes already the threat of losing a job was sufficient to keep them in line. Ultimately, OP does not want to be responsible for that. I can understand that they want to ask about it. Maybe there are other decisions at play - but I think it's in OP's favour that they want to ascertain that.

I agree with one thing in your answer, though: "Approach with caution." That's why I didn't downvote you.

@CaptainEmacs Pretend for a moment that he was terminated because he didn't just make a junior colleague cry, but sexually harassed others. You're not likely going to hear about it -- it's a personnel matter. You can express your regret, and you can tell that person that, but in reality unless you're the one that filed the complaint that caused the issue, whatever you do is not likely going to have any kind of impact.

@CaptainEmacs I'll also add that while academia should still be a refuge for the less well adapted (as you say), that's not at all an excuse to behave poorly. Every abuser you excuse and shelter means a dozen victims whose life you make miserable.

@CaptainEmacs I think there's a significant assumption in calling academia a 'refuge for less adapted characters'. Phrases like that implicitly protect people whose behaviour negatively affects others, and not those who are negatively affected by this behaviour. I've see no evidence that those who are not willing or able to put up with such behaviour are on average any less talented than your putative 'rough and ingenious' character, but if academia is a place which is tolerant of bad behaviour for performance, it effectively excludes other talented scientists just as surely as firing someone.

There are real philosophical arguments about whether and how such behaviour should be managed, particularly by large institutions. But I think it does the debate a real disservice to frame it as a disagreement between a purely wholesome and welcoming academic environment and a soulless corporate bureaucracy out to crush free speech.

@CaptainEmacs: It is not hard-nosed at all. The Law says that employers must protect their employees. Maybe this was one more in a long sequence on incidents in which by his abrasive and abusive personality the person endangered the psychological well-being of students, post-docs, researchers and faculty. Maybe he got warnings. We don't know. The person posting the question doesn't know. So the advice to keep out of it is good advice.

I really don't see any useful purpose in contacting the old professor. It will either come across as a knife being twisted in or make them more bitter. I'd really just let it alone. For all we know he just parked in the wrong person's spot once too often or messed up someone's lab work and the mentioned incident had nothing to do with it really.

I think that would be logical, but very, very, very inhumane. You describe a world of extreme brutality masked by smiling faces. I can't believe that we would be already there, nor that it would be a good direction. For example, I am pretty sure that she can ask at least, was the old prof fired for that event or not.

@CaptainEmacs "everyone looks over their shoulder before speaking" IMHO, everyone should look over their shoulder before speaking. Then they should think about why they wanted to look over their shoulder because they should only say things at work that they would be comfortable with anybody overhearing. If you're trying to say that being offensive or bigoted speech should be protected, then I strongly disagree. Complaints about leadership/management should either go directly to those in charge or vented to friends or family outside of work.

@CaptainEmacs I feel like your comment is backwards, because being kind and careful with what we say and how we say is what makes a place a "refuge for less adapted characters with a particular set of special skills". People who are rude, offense, unkind, etc., should not be granted refuge, they should be given awareness that their behavior is inappropriate, training on how to behave properly, and boundaries and consequences if they are not willing to work on their behavior as hard as they work on their "real" work.

@ToddWilcox You're describing a horrible, dystopian world where nobody is ever allowed to have an emotional outburst and every word you say can be used against you at any time. No thanks.

@barbecue That's not what Todd said at all. "consequences if they are not willing to work" is completely different from "every word you say can be used against you at any time."

Personally I would not assume that HR and management has a very good understanding of things of this nature, they do frequently get things wrong. And follow the person shouting the loudest, because they are often driven by optics of things. While I think its not good to have emotional outburst directed at people. It is entirely ok to direct criticism onto things, even if people who made those things would take it as an attack on a person. If they have a good reason it should be let known.

@ToddWilcox "everyone should look over their shoulder before speaking" - really? Well, there are countries where this is official policy. Not sure I wanted to live in such a society. Maybe you do. This does not at all mean that you have to accept bigoted or -ist language. You can and should response, even forcefully and also individually. But calling HR for everything turns everything into a black-and-white matter. The concept of a graded or a social response seems to be one of the past. We don't know if there is something more behind the firing and my suggestion does not claim absolutism.

@ToddWilcox You say: "If you're trying to say that being offensive or bigoted speech should be protected, then I strongly disagree." - please read my comment again, where I say: "there is a difference between giving someone a serious talking-to and kicking them out. The latter should be reserved for very serious offenses" Does that sound as if I am in favour of protecting bigoted speech? I am saying that going through HR and them removing them is easier than dealing with complex personalities. I have worked with very difficult, but capable people; I believe I know what I am talking about.

@CaptainEmacs Maybe I’m not sure what you’re talking about. It seemed like you were saying that people should be given leeway to say or do offensive or bigoted things as long as they are very good at their jobs. Is that not what you meant? Regarding experience, I myself am a very difficult but capable person. Errr maybe very capable but difficult is more accurate. Or very capable and very difficult. “Rather be smooth and professional than rough and ingenious.” - truly capable people can learn to be both ingenious and smooth and professional. It’s not a choice of one or the other.