I left a comment on this thread and it disappeared, but it concerned a worker who was let go two days into a 90 day probationary period.
As the recipient of a few instances like that, I found them emotionally crushing, wondering what was wrong with me that a company felt the need to jettison me without any warning or second chance. I was highly insecure about my personality and social skills in my younger years, and incidents like that in hiring processes were one of the primary reasons. I would spend days comparing myself to other workers, wondering what was so awful about me that I couldn't see but was obvious to everyone else, wondering why I was so easy to reject. It's taken me most of my adult life trying to recover from that.
The thing is, some employers actively cast aspersions on the applicants they reject and the workers they lay off, for seemingly no good reason at all other than to salt the ground and prevent them from asking for a second chance.
The particular employer the original OP dealt with actually sounded pretty neutral when they said “we're not continuing your employment”, seemed like they tried their best to not pin fault on any person. They still left the OP feeling like a less than good employee, like they fucked up in some way.
Likewise, when an employer says “not a good fit” they phrase it in a way that always puts the onus of not fitting in on the worker, never the management. Employers never self-reflect; they have the hiring and firing power and so they deem their judgment of who can do a job and who can get along, superior to the worker's judgment.
A lot of responses on the other thread suggested a new applicant came in that management wanted better, was cheaper, there was administrative glitching, not everyone in management was on the same page about hiring the OP, etc. Stuff that is categorically NOT the OOP's fault. And yet, even through all that, the OOP still felt at fault.
Because that's what the subtext of rejection language always seems to say. The more malicious employers try to invent performance or interpersonal issues when none existed before.
Why do employers choose to do this? And yes… it's a CHOICE to be that way. To make the worker feel so down on themselves that they won't even think of suing? To send a message of “don't you even THINK of trying to get in with this company again”? Psychological abuse is a great way to flex your muscles over a worker, it's a great way to gaslight and weaponize self-awareness, it's a highly effective way to teach someone that persistence and determination mean jack and shit… but it is not necessary to deter someone from suing.