Seems like a reasonable guess that it has something to do with the nature of the crime he was accused of (at the time).
If you're up for trial in a case involving sexual activity w/ a minor, your employer will have to be briefed if the work you do potentially involves minors (which Johnson's does). Makes sense? I guess it does.
But isn't the employer then supposed to suspend you, as a matter of course, until the trial has taken place? That's another odd feature here. You're informed of the situation - and yet you fail to suspend the guy, in spite of this being part and parcel of the thing itself. Who would risk the fallout from doing that? And can you even plausibly do it in the first place - what with the police being fully aware that you've been briefed?