That is a ridiculous statement and one that just makes an argument go around in circles. We all know that if a manager is s-xually harassing an employee, that's morally, ethically AND illegally wrong, if an employee is watching tv while on the clock in an office instead of working that is morally wrong, etc etc. We can go on and on and people can argue in circles whether watching tv while on the clock instead of working is morally wrong. But I think most reasonable people get the point and most reasonable people know right from wrong. If you get fired, there was a problem and companies do not want to hire a problem. They do not care what the details are or who was MORE right than the other, they just care that there was trouble and with many other candidates for a job why take the chance. A person who was laid off is a different story. Their job was cut due to a re-org or financial troubles, whatever.
If you are unsure as to the difference of a lay off versus firing than I'm sure you can study it on the internet. Personally, I'm not hiring someone that was fired. I don't need to bring trouble into my business or trouble for my current employees. I WILL however hire someone who has been laid off.
It is a correct statement that these SHLD employees were laid off and not fired. And it is a correct statement that there is a difference. Now if you want to go round in circles chasing your tail, have at it. I'm done.