Would you go to Trial for $1,618 ?

Without knowing the actual settlement positions taken by the parties, that's a tougher call to make. The self-rep plaintiff was taking the position that his mitigation earnings shouldn't offset his award. So while the employer lost on just cause, they won on the (relatively easy) issue of mitigation. It seems plausible to me, having dealt with lots of self-reps in the past, that the plaintiff's settlement position was much higher - i.e. to avoid a trial, they would have had to pay a much larger settlement. Which changes the calculus significantly: The employer probably regarded its potential liabilities as likely ranging from zero to $1600, yet the plaintiff argued he was entitled to over $23,000, which was very likely informing his settlement positions - and if it did to any meaningful extent, the employer would have rightly regarded such settlement positions as being highly unreasonable. Add to it the reluctance by many employers to pay out an employee who has engaged in misconduct (even knowing that just cause is a high threshold), and I can't say I'm surprised that they'd have taken this to trial.

Principles -- being principles -- should not be measured in terms of worth. If the defendant presumed just cause then presumably that cause ought to have been defended. To understand the mitigation, it would do well to appreciate the historical significance of notice, what it is, and why it matters. It seems to me that the proper result prevailed; it's difficult to imagine otherwise.

Fundamentally, it depends on which side of 'Principle' you're on.