Trust me, other companies are watching this case already and will adjust accordingly.

Of course, they won't stop firing employees who point out inconvenient truths, they'll just be more careful about the reasons they put in writing.

That's not really true at all. You just think that because you never hear about it. Stare decisis still applies at a trial level, but its scope is obviously much narrower. Moreover, most things really aren't that novel. Most importantly, its quite hard to research on this level and usually pointless because theres usually a higher level case anyway.

It is just persuasive precedent so any other court, or even the same court when dealing with case involving different parties, can ignore it.

You are correctly stating that stare decisis is really just (very) persuasive precedent for the court reconsidering its own decisions, and that it is not binding on other jurisdictions that are not lesser.

But these words belie the fact that stare decisis is largely a social construct for the judiciary. The right case and (very) persuasive argument could and does overcome precedent of any level in any court. It's just a matter of framing this case as "different" enough in a way that your reviewers (whether a higher court or a political concern) will agree with.