I think the circumstances referred to in Sit Closest to the Door are a curiously unique aspect of firing an individual in America. I have fired employees, albeit I was forthcoming ahead of time that their performances were being documented and recorded for review so it wasn't a bolt out of the blue for them.
At no time would I have worried I would be physically attacked or assaulted or stalked by an employee. I also worked in an environment where a fired employee or even one with a workplace grudge, regardless of the reason, could have caused catastrophic damage by sabotaging computers.
Perhaps it's the labour laws in place in Canada regarding the termination of an employee that restricts 'perp walks' which in my opinion is a needlessly humiliating experience to put a person through when they are still processing the information they don't have a job anymore. When you have a workplace contract between employer and employee everyone knows what their role is and the expectations attached to it.
The only caveat I would have regarding that contract is when a person's performance is negatively affected by substance abuse. Where I worked the employer could work with the employee to overcome their addiction by providing leave of absences to deal with the issue, instead of firing. Rather than a punitive approach to dealing with the issue, the Canadian Human Rights Act encourages a duty to accommodate. Yeah, I know, that sounds kind of wussy, enabling a drug user or alcoholic, but in reality we have no idea what prompts the issue. Mental health, home life discord including DV, work/home life balance especially for caregivers, etc. I think maybe CS fell within the mental health umbrella.
Plus, in Canada, no one expects a terminated employee to go out and buy an AR-15 as payback. Mainly because our gun laws are much more stringent here.