Tinder sued for sexual harassment by former co-founder(uk.reuters.com)
uk.reuters.com
Tinder sued for sexual harassment by former co-founder
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/07/01/us-tinder-lawsuit-harrassment-idUKKBN0F52JC20140701
159 comments
I hate to be that guy but if you suspend some one to investigate serious allegation you don't blurt out "he did it" before the investigation is complete and you have disciplined the employee.
to misquote alice and wonderland "Trial first then the sentence"
to misquote alice and wonderland "Trial first then the sentence"
The standard procedure in any harassment case is this bulleted list:
* Put the worker on leave and conduct investigation.
* Put the worker on leave and conduct investigation.
Thank you the point which all the down votes on my comment seemed to have missed! no wonder sv and start ups seem to have HR disasters every other day - they seem to lack even basic understanding of employment law and best practice.
So you're saying that Ms. Wolfe can accuse him of sending harassing messages, but IAC can't?
Even if IAC has irrefutable evidence that it happened?
Even if IAC has irrefutable evidence that it happened?
IAC can what it likes but disclosing this while its own investigation is still in progress could lead to him getting a better result than he deserves ie he might say my employer did not follow the rules so I am claiming unfair dismissal and win compensation.
Incompetence or deliberate mistake?
Incompetence or deliberate mistake?
See, the problem is the word "harassing".
He sent her emails? Fact.
The nature was sexual? Fact.
They were "harassing"? The very conjecture that is to be investigated.
As an example, if I send a text to my girlfriend and co-worker that says "I'm gonna plow your fields tonight", it is a fact it was sent, was sexual but harassing? That is contextual.
He sent her emails? Fact.
The nature was sexual? Fact.
They were "harassing"? The very conjecture that is to be investigated.
As an example, if I send a text to my girlfriend and co-worker that says "I'm gonna plow your fields tonight", it is a fact it was sent, was sexual but harassing? That is contextual.
Does the "it became clear" in IAC's statement mean nothing to you?
It means that they have irrefutable evidence, as I said before.
What does it mean to you?
What does it mean to you?
Key word: Private.
Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating.
Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating.
> Key word: Private.
This is a ballpark guess, but probably about 99% of workplace harassment is done privately.
> Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating.
If a manager has a relationship with a subordinate, the manager should be held accountable for that, not the subordinate.
This is a ballpark guess, but probably about 99% of workplace harassment is done privately.
> Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating.
If a manager has a relationship with a subordinate, the manager should be held accountable for that, not the subordinate.
If a manager has a relationship with a subordinate, the manager should be held accountable for that, not the subordinate.
That's a great rule for the company, and it would be awesome if it existed at more places.
That's a great rule for the company, and it would be awesome if it existed at more places.
[deleted](1)
IANAL but AFAIK if I send a mail to you it's not private and can totally be accepted as evidence in a court of law.There is no notion of privacy in sending a mail,a text message,... the only thing that would not be admissible is if I recorded a conversation between us without telling you you are on record.
the only thing that would not be admissible is if I recorded a conversation between us without telling you you are on record.
Doesn't that vary by state? IIRC in some you can record anything you're involved in while in others everyone involved has to agree (or at least know?). Or maybe this was about getting sued under privacy laws rather than admissibility...
Doesn't that vary by state? IIRC in some you can record anything you're involved in while in others everyone involved has to agree (or at least know?). Or maybe this was about getting sued under privacy laws rather than admissibility...
I say shame on them both for getting romantically involved as co-founders. IAC probably didn't know or know the extent.
Ignoring the romantic relationship, check pages 6 and 7 for how multiple officers didn't want a "girl" to be seen as a co-founder. It's not as salacious but the allegations, if true, move things out of the "one rogue manager" territory.
The entire complaint is rather damning. This is something I would expect from the Snapchat guys, but wow.
> This is something I would expect from the Snapchat guys, but wow.
And Tinder is any different.....how?
And Tinder is any different.....how?
AFAIK, the Tinder guys were not the ones with a leaked Fraternity leadership e-mail that clearly exposed them as misogynistic douches with little sensitivity outside their bro-ubble.
That said, Tinder and Snapchat are two peas in a pod, eh?
That said, Tinder and Snapchat are two peas in a pod, eh?
It seems she was willing to talk to him about work and had asked him to concentrate on work stuff. It seems he declined to do so.
It also seems that some of his comments were made from work accounts, to work accounts, on work hardware, or face to face on work premises.
It also seems that some of his comments were made from work accounts, to work accounts, on work hardware, or face to face on work premises.
I think the accusation is that she was mistreated at work because of this.
I agree with you. What I really dislike though is how this kind of hate begets more hate. I was surprised to see so many downvoted-into-oblivion comments so soon after submission. There's already foul name calling, and hints of intolerance.
So on top of "there's no reason to defend this guy", I don't think it is constructive to attack each other here in such negative ways.
Edit for clarification: Now that there are 80+ more comments it seems more constructive. There were quite a few in the first ~20 that were pretty sour.
So on top of "there's no reason to defend this guy", I don't think it is constructive to attack each other here in such negative ways.
Edit for clarification: Now that there are 80+ more comments it seems more constructive. There were quite a few in the first ~20 that were pretty sour.
The reason that I downvote most (not all!) of those comments is:
1. They emphasize a culture of doubt about these accusations, which may discourage people in a situation like Ms. Wolfe's from stepping forward. On the other hand, the accused people in power really don't need our help to defend themselves.
2. They're formulaic, repetitive, and uninteresting. Most could probably have been written by a misandry chatbot. They don't bring any new ideas to the table.
And while I try hard to be diplomatic when I write critical replies to those comments...I can empathize with those who are a little harsher.
1. They emphasize a culture of doubt about these accusations, which may discourage people in a situation like Ms. Wolfe's from stepping forward. On the other hand, the accused people in power really don't need our help to defend themselves.
2. They're formulaic, repetitive, and uninteresting. Most could probably have been written by a misandry chatbot. They don't bring any new ideas to the table.
And while I try hard to be diplomatic when I write critical replies to those comments...I can empathize with those who are a little harsher.
I don't know about the US, but in the UK the situation regarding (1) is the reverse. In the recent scandal, the (student) president of Oxford Union was publicly accused and arrested because of rape allegations. He was subsequently found innocent and one of the victims apparently made up the whole story, but in the meantime a lot of influential people have cancelled their talks at the Union and his name is smeared for life, while there have been no negative consequences (yet) for the lying accuser - she can't even be named publicly!
Apparently, this has spurned a conversation in the UK media whether the names of people accused of sex crimes should be kept confidential until they are found guilty, in order to avoid ruining innocent people's lives.
Apparently, this has spurned a conversation in the UK media whether the names of people accused of sex crimes should be kept confidential until they are found guilty, in order to avoid ruining innocent people's lives.
I agree on the point that allegations aren't true 100% of the time. And it is tragic when someone's reputation is irreparably tarnished as a result of a false accusation.
But it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of rape accusations are true[1], and this likely carries over to accusations of sexual and gender-based harassment as well.
Statistically, it makes sense to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather unfairly tarnish the reputation of a small minority of the accused, than attack the reputation of the accusers (the vast majority of whom truly are victims of a terrible, heinous crime).
This doesn't mean that the accused shouldn't get a fair legal trial. But I think it does affect how they should be treated by the court of public opinion (until they are exonerated, in the rare cases where that actually happens).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estima...
But it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of rape accusations are true[1], and this likely carries over to accusations of sexual and gender-based harassment as well.
Statistically, it makes sense to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather unfairly tarnish the reputation of a small minority of the accused, than attack the reputation of the accusers (the vast majority of whom truly are victims of a terrible, heinous crime).
This doesn't mean that the accused shouldn't get a fair legal trial. But I think it does affect how they should be treated by the court of public opinion (until they are exonerated, in the rare cases where that actually happens).
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estima...
Hm... how about treating both the accuser and the accused fairly and respectfully? E.g. by not revealing identities of either one of them until the case proceeds to trial.
It sickens me that you think people "should" be treated by the court of public opinion in any way.
It sickens me that you think people "should" be treated by the court of public opinion in any way.
I upvoted you, but, do we have to choose? Do we have to decide that one side or the other is lying? Can we treat accusations seriously without destroying the accused, and treat the accused's rights seriously without destroying the accuser?
EDIT It's said how comments here are flipping back and forth between black and grey like I was watching some sick checkerboard of humanity.
EDIT It's said how comments here are flipping back and forth between black and grey like I was watching some sick checkerboard of humanity.
(I've actually been upvoting most of this conversation!)
I think we're actually on the same page -- I don't think personal attacks help at all. The whole point of Hacker News is to have interesting discussions, but personal attacks are not really very interesting.
And, I think (and I think you'd agree) that we have to take the victim's claims seriously so that we can learn more about how this happened and how we can avoid empowering someone like Mr. Mateen to carry out such reprehensible behavior in our own workplaces. That's the discussion that's worth having.
EDIT: Just wanted to add...this case is somewhat unique in that IAC has literally confirmed that Mr. Mateen sent harassing messages to Ms. Wolfe. I posted my first comment not because I wanted to attack Mr. Mateen, but because I'm getting tired of the typical flood of "oh this is just yet another unfounded accusation against some poor founder" FUD comments on these stories.
I think we're actually on the same page -- I don't think personal attacks help at all. The whole point of Hacker News is to have interesting discussions, but personal attacks are not really very interesting.
And, I think (and I think you'd agree) that we have to take the victim's claims seriously so that we can learn more about how this happened and how we can avoid empowering someone like Mr. Mateen to carry out such reprehensible behavior in our own workplaces. That's the discussion that's worth having.
EDIT: Just wanted to add...this case is somewhat unique in that IAC has literally confirmed that Mr. Mateen sent harassing messages to Ms. Wolfe. I posted my first comment not because I wanted to attack Mr. Mateen, but because I'm getting tired of the typical flood of "oh this is just yet another unfounded accusation against some poor founder" FUD comments on these stories.
False allegations of rape are fantastically rare and the people who make those false allegations are almost always prosecuted, and convicted, for it. Everyone recognises that false allegations are immensely harmful - to the man who has been libled; to other women making allegations; to other women who do not make allegations because they fear not being believed.
> the people who make those false allegations are almost always prosecuted, and convicted, for it
Not really, at least not here in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service generally doesn't consider it in the public interest unless it's a particularly serious case. For example the most recent case involved a barrister making the accusations and the guy she'd accused being jailed amongst prisoners who'd somehow gotten the idea he was a pedophile[1]. (Those kind of rumours tend to get people brutally mutilated or murdered by other prisoners - kind of a big deal.) Even then, women's rights campaigners protested against the conviction and accused the police of harming rape victims by bringing the case to court.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/26/trainee-barri...
Not really, at least not here in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service generally doesn't consider it in the public interest unless it's a particularly serious case. For example the most recent case involved a barrister making the accusations and the guy she'd accused being jailed amongst prisoners who'd somehow gotten the idea he was a pedophile[1]. (Those kind of rumours tend to get people brutally mutilated or murdered by other prisoners - kind of a big deal.) Even then, women's rights campaigners protested against the conviction and accused the police of harming rape victims by bringing the case to court.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jun/26/trainee-barri...
My assumption (perhaps wrong) was not so much that false allegations are fantastically rare, but rather that unreported and/or dismissed cases of rape are shockingly common, and that therefore giving the benefit of the doubt to the 'claimant'(?), at least when the facts are unclear, is a good approach.
That said, I'm generally hesitant to express myself based on those assumptions, but I still question them (and those of others).
Do you have any links/research that shows that false allegations are 'fantastically uncommon'? Because I've heard too many accounts of people claiming false allegation to just assume you're right.
That said, I'm generally hesitant to express myself based on those assumptions, but I still question them (and those of others).
Do you have any links/research that shows that false allegations are 'fantastically uncommon'? Because I've heard too many accounts of people claiming false allegation to just assume you're right.
False allegations are far from being fantastically rare.
You also have to acknowledge that when you have a rape accusation, there isn't a boolean result(either the allegation is false, or it's true and this results in some penalty). It's a broad spectrum, with only around a third of the cases resulting in conviction.[1]
Of the 136 cases of sexual assault 8 (5.9%) were coded as false reports, 61 (44.9%) did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action, 48 (35.3%) were referred for prosecution or disciplinary action, and 19 (13.9%) contained insufficient information to be coded (see Table 2).
[1]http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegati...
You also have to acknowledge that when you have a rape accusation, there isn't a boolean result(either the allegation is false, or it's true and this results in some penalty). It's a broad spectrum, with only around a third of the cases resulting in conviction.[1]
Of the 136 cases of sexual assault 8 (5.9%) were coded as false reports, 61 (44.9%) did not proceed to any prosecution or disciplinary action, 48 (35.3%) were referred for prosecution or disciplinary action, and 19 (13.9%) contained insufficient information to be coded (see Table 2).
[1]http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegati...
Fantastically rare? Do a google search, it's a huge percentage.
You can read the actual complaint here:
http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
It's bad.
http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
It's bad.
The allegations, if true, are bad.
> Mr. Mateen went on to say that he didn’t want boys trying to date Ms. Wolfe due to her co-founder status, and that being a female co-founder of Tinder was 'slutty' because it is an app people use 'to hook up.'
On a tangential note: it's interesting to see the very weak bargaining on her part on pages 64-65, where she's trying to talk to Sean Rad about her equity. Textbook wrong way to approach it for both parties. He should've been soft, to encourage her not to sue, and she should've been the one with a hard edge, seeing as how she was effectively being driven out of the company she helped co-found.
> Mr. Mateen went on to say that he didn’t want boys trying to date Ms. Wolfe due to her co-founder status, and that being a female co-founder of Tinder was 'slutty' because it is an app people use 'to hook up.'
On a tangential note: it's interesting to see the very weak bargaining on her part on pages 64-65, where she's trying to talk to Sean Rad about her equity. Textbook wrong way to approach it for both parties. He should've been soft, to encourage her not to sue, and she should've been the one with a hard edge, seeing as how she was effectively being driven out of the company she helped co-found.
In order of reliability, things we probably know about Tinder:
* Mateen did supervise Wolfe.
* Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly).
* The text messages in the exhibits in the complaint actually occurred.
At this point, vice-grip mortal-lock "bad" seems to be just a "Tinder and/or IAC's management knew this was happening" showing away, right?
* Mateen did supervise Wolfe.
* Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly).
* The text messages in the exhibits in the complaint actually occurred.
At this point, vice-grip mortal-lock "bad" seems to be just a "Tinder and/or IAC's management knew this was happening" showing away, right?
(Not legal advice disclaimer)
Wolfe might not even need to show that Tinder/IAC knew if she can show that Mateen invoked his supervisory authority to demote Wolfe from co-founder status. In such cases, where the harasser uses official authority to effect a tangible employment action, the company is vicariously liable for the conduct of the harasser, without any further showing by the plaintiff.
If she can't show a tangible employment action, the company can avoid liability by showing that it acted reasonably to prevent or correct the harassment, or that she acted unreasonably by e.g. not complaining to someone higher up. Showing lack of knowledge would be a good start, but they could also show they tried to take corrective measures when they found out. Of course if the text messages are true, some of those angles might be foreclosed...
Here's a short article on the subject that explains this pretty clearly: http://www.thompsoncoe.com/NewsEvents/Publications?find=2631....
Wolfe might not even need to show that Tinder/IAC knew if she can show that Mateen invoked his supervisory authority to demote Wolfe from co-founder status. In such cases, where the harasser uses official authority to effect a tangible employment action, the company is vicariously liable for the conduct of the harasser, without any further showing by the plaintiff.
If she can't show a tangible employment action, the company can avoid liability by showing that it acted reasonably to prevent or correct the harassment, or that she acted unreasonably by e.g. not complaining to someone higher up. Showing lack of knowledge would be a good start, but they could also show they tried to take corrective measures when they found out. Of course if the text messages are true, some of those angles might be foreclosed...
Here's a short article on the subject that explains this pretty clearly: http://www.thompsoncoe.com/NewsEvents/Publications?find=2631....
> * Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly).
It is very unusual to see a company actually acknowledge an allegation like that. But do you think it was a bad idea to do so?
Obviously it has legal ramifications. They're literally admitting guilt.
But Tinder/IAC will have to work to do to demonstrate that they care about having a healthy workplace culture. And this seems like a good way to lend credibility to the fact that they take that responsibility seriously (instead of just FUD-ing the victim with a vaguely worded statement).
It is very unusual to see a company actually acknowledge an allegation like that. But do you think it was a bad idea to do so?
Obviously it has legal ramifications. They're literally admitting guilt.
But Tinder/IAC will have to work to do to demonstrate that they care about having a healthy workplace culture. And this seems like a good way to lend credibility to the fact that they take that responsibility seriously (instead of just FUD-ing the victim with a vaguely worded statement).
They might as well 'fess up; there's no point in trying to defuse a bomb that has already gone off...
It hurt to read that, because part of me was scared that she was about to permanently bargain away things that were owed to her. It seems she merely resigned and didn't accept any settlement, so she dodged that bullet.
EDIT TO ADD Anyone who feels treated unfairly: don't sign any offer without legal advice. A contract needs, among other things, to have consideration[1] to be binding. If they give you $100 if you agree not to sue for sexual harassment, you could be up a creek.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
EDIT TO ADD Anyone who feels treated unfairly: don't sign any offer without legal advice. A contract needs, among other things, to have consideration[1] to be binding. If they give you $100 if you agree not to sue for sexual harassment, you could be up a creek.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
[deleted]
"Mr. Mateen told Ms. Wolfe that the reason she could no longer hold herself out as a co-founder was that she was a 24-year-old “girl” with little experience. Once again he said that holding her out as a co-founder “makes the company look like a joke” and “devalues the company.” Mr. Mateen tried to justify the situation by saying “Facebook and Snapchat don’t have girl founders, it just makes it look like Tinder was some accident.” Further, as Mr. Rad informed Ms. Wolfe, IAC would not let her be publicly recognized as a co-founder."
It's rare to see sexism in tech spelled out so blatantly. If the above is true, that's absolutely despicable.
It's rare to see sexism in tech spelled out so blatantly. If the above is true, that's absolutely despicable.
The deep irony if this is that at the time this conversation allegedly took place, Mateen was just a 26 year old "boy" a few years out of school. It takes a lot of balls to pull the age card on someone two years younger than you.
> It's rare to see sexism in tech spelled out so blatantly.
Read some of the comments here; you won't be disappointed.
Read some of the comments here; you won't be disappointed.
It's so many levels of weird thinking. You have to be really far down the VC-istan rabbit hole if you're worried about your founders' genders and how that is perceived. None of Tinder's users care about the co-founders and the company's creation myth - they are worried about the perception among funders, and this is the same community that's always trumpeting about what a meritocracy it is.
There's a decent chance to get into racism as well, if you look at the content of the texts and the sender.
As an aside, I found it a little hard to take the texts seriously--such atrocious spelling and grammar! On an old candybar I've typed more clearly and at greater length. For shame.
As an aside, I found it a little hard to take the texts seriously--such atrocious spelling and grammar! On an old candybar I've typed more clearly and at greater length. For shame.
Don't forget the casual homophobia!
Don't be silly, that has nothing to do with sexism in tech and everything to do with sexism of a single idiot. I, for one, would be really happy to have a girl co-founder (I would be equally happy to have a guy co-founder, though).
That's great for you. But (if he wrote it) he didn't write that in a bubble. He wrote it in an environment where an overwhelming proportion of startups are founded by young white men. Put another way, a man in a rural southern town calling Obama the n-word is just a solitary act, but one cannot discount the racism of that man's peers in promoting the use of that word to describe black people.
[deleted]
Posts like these remind me how many socially maladjusted misogynists exist on this site just waiting for stuff like this so they can throw their 2c in.
It says right there that IAC confirmed he sent the messages. The rest of this honestly does not matter at all, it's just kindling on the fire. Those alone are enough to prove that he sexually harassed her. If you're honestly trying to argue that we 'don't know all that facts' and that 'we shouldn't jump to conclusions' then I feel bad for any women who have to interact with you because you're probably a fucking scumbag too.
It says right there that IAC confirmed he sent the messages. The rest of this honestly does not matter at all, it's just kindling on the fire. Those alone are enough to prove that he sexually harassed her. If you're honestly trying to argue that we 'don't know all that facts' and that 'we shouldn't jump to conclusions' then I feel bad for any women who have to interact with you because you're probably a fucking scumbag too.
You might work on your delivery of the whole "If you don't agree with me, then you're a fucking scumbag" thing. People more sensitive than I might construe that as inappropriate - perhaps as harassment.
He didn't say that if you didn't agree with him, you're a fucking scumbag. He said that if you're still claiming we should reserve judgement after it's been confirmed that the messages were sent, you're a fucking scumbag. In my opinion, that's a non-controversial statement and likely to be true.
Edit: Here are the messages: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm...
Edit: Here are the messages: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm...
And yet, where's the harm in waiting for the full story to be revealed?
As an apologist mechanism, I'll concede that it's lacking, but even in the face of evidence, we should be wary of indicting anything for which we don't have personal, inside involvement, but even for cases, like this, for which there appears to be evidence, predisposing ourselves to a cause makes it less likely that we'll adjust our opinions in the event that counter-evidence is provided, or the existing evidence is placed into a context which might make it otherwise reasonable.
Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.
As an apologist mechanism, I'll concede that it's lacking, but even in the face of evidence, we should be wary of indicting anything for which we don't have personal, inside involvement, but even for cases, like this, for which there appears to be evidence, predisposing ourselves to a cause makes it less likely that we'll adjust our opinions in the event that counter-evidence is provided, or the existing evidence is placed into a context which might make it otherwise reasonable.
Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.
> Note, I'm not suggesting that any of the above applies here, but as a general practice, avoiding prejudgement in the absence of all the facts is a bad way to approach gossip.
This isn't gossip. The text messages in the complaint have been confirmed and condemned by Tinder. She was clearly sexually harassed by Mateen, who has been suspended. Tinder is disputing the allegations with respect to its management.
This isn't gossip. The text messages in the complaint have been confirmed and condemned by Tinder. She was clearly sexually harassed by Mateen, who has been suspended. Tinder is disputing the allegations with respect to its management.
Call me old fashioned, but allegations with legal implications are, to me at least, gossip, until ruled on by the courts and juries.
> It says right there that IAC confirmed he sent the messages.
I would call it CYA. All they submitted to the court was screen captures of iMessage, so presumably the company saw the same thing. They felt compelled to comment on that, that's fine. But to me, sorry, screen captures of iMessage aren't good enough. That can easily be faked with you and a friend sending over-the-top messages to each other. I would want to see phone company records.
I would call it CYA. All they submitted to the court was screen captures of iMessage, so presumably the company saw the same thing. They felt compelled to comment on that, that's fine. But to me, sorry, screen captures of iMessage aren't good enough. That can easily be faked with you and a friend sending over-the-top messages to each other. I would want to see phone company records.
By signing the pleading, Ms. Wolfe's attorneys are certifying that they have made "an inquiry reasonable under the
circumstances" and believe "the allegations and other factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, are likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery." [1]
While it's certainly possible that the evidence included in the pleading is manufactured, her lawyers have staked their own reputation and careers on the evidence not being obviously fake.
[1] California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7
While it's certainly possible that the evidence included in the pleading is manufactured, her lawyers have staked their own reputation and careers on the evidence not being obviously fake.
[1] California Code of Civil Procedure Section 128.7
[deleted]
Just curious, does anyone want to argue the point about the texts being relatively flimsy evidence or just downvote? I guess that's what passes for debate these days.
Why would a large holding company like IAC do something as stupid as fake messages in a legal deposition? What you're suggesting is highly unlikely, and would have absolutely no potential payoff for IAC. Your comment comes off as completely off-topic.
Where did I say the company faked the messages? They were clearly sent to her.
Do you have any evidence that Ms. Wolfe has committed a felony or is making an unsubstantiated accusation of perjury what you consider "debate"?
That was just plain straight up sexual harasment, you can ask any HR person. It really doesn't matter what she did, once a person asks you to stop harassing them, they really really really should stop, legally speaking. I was going to get the Tinder app myself, but forget it. I can't support assholes like this who give guys and tech a bad name. I hope she, or someone else, mounts a marketing campaign asking females to delete their accounts from the app. Let it become another tired wasteland of a cockfest, and then they will know how important a female founder can actually be. p.s. -no, i'm not a female, i just get pissed because tech guys constantly have a bad name and i constantly need to defend the fact that we are not all assholes.
One not completely obvious lesson that can be drawn from this, has to do with preventing cases like this from being filed in the first place. If you look at the last exhibit in the complaint, even at the very end the CEO (Rad) could have negotiated what sounds like a very modest settlement if he had been willing to be a little understanding and flexible. Instead he went into some legalistic lock down mode and refused to consider even a token severance.
Now perhaps before signing anything Ms. Wolfe would have consulted a lawyer and so there would have been a lawsuit anyway. And as a disinterested observer, I would kind of hope so. But the pragmatic lesson for people who might be in a similar situation is that a little humility and understanding can go a long way. I'm reminded of the study finding that doctors who apologized for medical mistakes ended up being sued less often for medical malpractice.
Of course, by far the best thing is to avoid such situations altogether!
Now perhaps before signing anything Ms. Wolfe would have consulted a lawyer and so there would have been a lawsuit anyway. And as a disinterested observer, I would kind of hope so. But the pragmatic lesson for people who might be in a similar situation is that a little humility and understanding can go a long way. I'm reminded of the study finding that doctors who apologized for medical mistakes ended up being sued less often for medical malpractice.
Of course, by far the best thing is to avoid such situations altogether!
Instead he went into some legalistic lock down mode and refused to consider even a token severance.
I can see going into some kind of "legalistic lock down mode" if you suddenly are worried about a lawsuit, but in that case it might be prudent to get an actual lawyer's advice. I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems unlikely that the CEO's actions here are something that the company's lawyer would've advised. It sounds like she was asking for honestly much less than she should've been asking for, and unless there's something I'm missing, I can't believe it was in the company's interests for him to refuse that offer. She was offering to resign in return for quite modest severance conditions, and my guess is that a corporate lawyer would've been happy to advise the CEO to accept the offer and close the affair.
I can see going into some kind of "legalistic lock down mode" if you suddenly are worried about a lawsuit, but in that case it might be prudent to get an actual lawyer's advice. I'm not a lawyer myself, but it seems unlikely that the CEO's actions here are something that the company's lawyer would've advised. It sounds like she was asking for honestly much less than she should've been asking for, and unless there's something I'm missing, I can't believe it was in the company's interests for him to refuse that offer. She was offering to resign in return for quite modest severance conditions, and my guess is that a corporate lawyer would've been happy to advise the CEO to accept the offer and close the affair.
Even if she got a lawyer, that doesn't mean there would be no settlement. Her lawyer would highlight the stuff on page 6 and 7, in which corporate policy was apparently that having a "girl" as cofounder devalues the company, and ask for more money. And, if they were smart, they would have agreed. Insurance might have even covered it.
It's not fool-proof; sometimes people are treated so awfully that they want the feeling of justice from a trial. As you say, best to avoid these situations altogether.
It's not fool-proof; sometimes people are treated so awfully that they want the feeling of justice from a trial. As you say, best to avoid these situations altogether.
The complaint is here, fwiw: http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
Some pretty bad stuff that Buzzfeed found in the complaint: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm...
Crap, that's really over the top
Wow.
What a steaming pile of useless crap Mr. Mateen is. Those texts are ruthless and unrelenting. I hope that she gets millions in compensation and this asshat gets fired immediately. Fucking prick.
What a steaming pile of useless crap Mr. Mateen is. Those texts are ruthless and unrelenting. I hope that she gets millions in compensation and this asshat gets fired immediately. Fucking prick.
[deleted]
IDK how many of you have read the texts,
http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex...
They are incredibly sad, The fact that individuals who wrote them can call themselves executives of any position is baffling,
From the side of Ms. Wolfe, i do have to hey texts are very calm, well the screens chosen do depict that, however the texts of Mateen and Sean, are bizarrely foul, if they are true as there is no doubt that the moment that they are not,
Ms Wolfe should shit on these fuck faces
Previous go round on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7969301
Tinder is "casual sex: the app". Sexism is a very real and very serious problem in the IT world. But Tinder is not the most boringly neutral tech company you can find, especially in this particular sense.
It's good to keep the special-ness of this case in mind. For instance, sexism usually doesn't get this bad. On the other hand, an atmosphere that isn't as hostile as this can still be, well, bad.
It's good to keep the special-ness of this case in mind. For instance, sexism usually doesn't get this bad. On the other hand, an atmosphere that isn't as hostile as this can still be, well, bad.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> "We unequivocally condemn these messages," the spokesman said, "but believe that Ms. Wolfe’s allegations with respect to Tinder and its management are unfounded.”
Uh-huh.
Uh-huh.
[deleted]
I'm shocked, shocked ...
Wow, if this is true, what a horrible person. All the efforts to get more women interested in tech, trampled. Hopefully, people will learn from this how to not do it and that still in 2014 misogynism is completely present and will get swept under the carpet.
Really? One bad breakup between two C-types and "ALL" of the efforts to bring MORE women into tech is trampled?
IMHO...this has nothing to do with Tinder or the parent company. Because, guess what happens when you decide to enter the dating world? You may get burned, called bad names or become generally upset.
So don't shit where you eat and then blame the cafeteria for the bad taste left in your mouth.
IMHO...this has nothing to do with Tinder or the parent company. Because, guess what happens when you decide to enter the dating world? You may get burned, called bad names or become generally upset.
So don't shit where you eat and then blame the cafeteria for the bad taste left in your mouth.
No, but that's why many cafeterias have a 'no shitting where you eat' policy that results in immediate termination.
This has everything to do with Tinder when the CEO is aware of harassment and abuse, yet does nothing.
Thank you. I agree. I don't know why I got downvoted so much for my comment.
One bad breakup between two C-types and "ALL" of the efforts to bring MORE women into tech is trampled?
Well, yeah. Only half of the efforts trampeled?
Well, yeah. Only half of the efforts trampeled?
IMHO this has nothing to do with tech either. Could easily replace tinder with a used car sales company and no one would be suprised.
The article stated the lawsuit has been started and I didn't see any verdict. So let's not be quick to judge, we've heard only 1 side of the story.
Is there another side that would make any of these actions acceptable? I can't think of any.
Yeah, let's get rid of judges and always apply the maximum sentence if found guilty, regardless of circumstances or what the other party did.
Binary justice sounds like an especially wonderful idea when the matter is human relationships.
You're making the assumption that the allegations are 100% truthful in the first place.
Tinder has confirmed the messages. Here they are: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm...
That's pathetic. This guy seems to have the emotional development of a 5 year old.
I should have been more specific. I was referring to the text messages. In what light is anything he texted her acceptable? Are you implying that they may be fabricated?
The texts aren't official records from the phone company, they're just screenshots of iMessage. Can't fake those!
I'm just a little skeptical because if you read the complaint, it's mostly about her trying to assert her co-founder status with sexual harassment as a bludgeon.
I'm just a little skeptical because if you read the complaint, it's mostly about her trying to assert her co-founder status with sexual harassment as a bludgeon.
She claims she was given co-founder status, and that the reason it was removed was sexist.
That's an important claim about the company as a whole, and not just about one person at that company.
That's an important claim about the company as a whole, and not just about one person at that company.
Is this really an entire suite about name-calling? How old are we? Calling people names should be protected by free speech.
These sexual harassment cases do more to hurt women than help them IMHO. It reinforces the viewpoint that women are seen as a liability.
These sexual harassment cases do more to hurt women than help them IMHO. It reinforces the viewpoint that women are seen as a liability.
> These sexual harassment cases do more to hurt women than help them IMHO. It reinforces the viewpoint that women are seen as a liability.
Let me translate what you just said: if someone harasses you at your workplace and elsewhere, and as such causes harm to you, and do so also by deploying systematically dissipated stereotypes (yes, they are social weapons), you shall not press charges, because if you do, you would be a petty little girl who is causing harm to your company.
...
Let me translate what you just said: if someone harasses you at your workplace and elsewhere, and as such causes harm to you, and do so also by deploying systematically dissipated stereotypes (yes, they are social weapons), you shall not press charges, because if you do, you would be a petty little girl who is causing harm to your company.
...
That is not what I said at all....
If someone harms me I'm obviously going to press charges. The issue is whether those charges should actually have legal basis.
If someone harms me I'm obviously going to press charges. The issue is whether those charges should actually have legal basis.
These private message things are appropriate until (possibly years after breaking up) it's convenient for one party to say otherwise.
This bullshit should be put to an end.
This bullshit should be put to an end.
Sounds like a typical bad breakup to me, these two people just happen to work in high profile positions in the Tech world.
Girl finds new man, guy gets angry and lashes out by calling her a whore.(Unfounded) Nothing to see here folks!
Unless you're into this sort of drama...
Girl finds new man, guy gets angry and lashes out by calling her a whore.(Unfounded) Nothing to see here folks!
Unless you're into this sort of drama...
So why did the woman get fired? Why didn't the man get fired? Does this seem fair to you?
If your ex works with/for you, you have a legal obligation to keep your mouth shut, no matter how emotionally torn up you are.
Let's just keep in mind that these are merely allegations, and that no-one was convicted, and no investigation has completed so far. I hope the media and the courts don't ruin another person's life based on allegations that turn out to be false, as in the case of Julian Assange and the recent Oxford Union scandal.
Also, keep in mind that it is in Tinder's interest to put all blame to the employee that sent the allegedly inappropriate private messages. We have no idea what the true nature of their relationship was, how it evolved, and if it ended on a bad note.
I'm not saying that he is innocent, but he should be treated as such until he is proved guilty.
Also, keep in mind that it is in Tinder's interest to put all blame to the employee that sent the allegedly inappropriate private messages. We have no idea what the true nature of their relationship was, how it evolved, and if it ended on a bad note.
I'm not saying that he is innocent, but he should be treated as such until he is proved guilty.
> "the courts don't ruin another person's life based on allegations that turn out to be false, as in the case of Julian Assange"
I think your bias might be leaking but the case against Assange was never shown to be false. As far as I'm aware he's still in an embassy avoiding his trial.
I think your bias might be leaking but the case against Assange was never shown to be false. As far as I'm aware he's still in an embassy avoiding his trial.
I don't want to comment on this particular story. These are terrible allegations and they deserve their day in court. There's also a drive-by, rubber-necking, gossip-mongering aspect to these stories. Hate to contribute to it.
I would like to comment on all the heat sexual discrimination cases are getting in the public eye lately. (I have no idea if the number of actual cases are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same). Big, public, messy scandals are no good for anybody, and they're not a new phenomenon.
We have various professions where lawsuits of a sexual nature can be especially damaging. A couple that come to mind right off the bat are politicians and religious leaders.
I've heard that in many cases, the threat of an unfounded lawsuit is so great, and it could cause so much harm, that folks are sticking with same-sex environments where there are always 3 or more people in a room together.
I wonder if we'll see such adaptations in the startup industry. It could be that the public outcry after so many of these things, to include more women, might actually drive out more highly segregated work environments. It bears watching.
I would like to comment on all the heat sexual discrimination cases are getting in the public eye lately. (I have no idea if the number of actual cases are increasing, decreasing, or staying the same). Big, public, messy scandals are no good for anybody, and they're not a new phenomenon.
We have various professions where lawsuits of a sexual nature can be especially damaging. A couple that come to mind right off the bat are politicians and religious leaders.
I've heard that in many cases, the threat of an unfounded lawsuit is so great, and it could cause so much harm, that folks are sticking with same-sex environments where there are always 3 or more people in a room together.
I wonder if we'll see such adaptations in the startup industry. It could be that the public outcry after so many of these things, to include more women, might actually drive out more highly segregated work environments. It bears watching.
I don't know about politicians and religious leaders, but somehow or another law firms, accounting firms, management consultants and medical practices seem to manage without needing rules about having "always 3 or more people in a room together".
Look at the numbers. There are still pay equity issues all over the place, but in terms of participation, every other white collar industry puts technology to shame. 66% of staff attorneys are women. ~40% of biglaw partners are. And in law, 40% is a problem. In technology, it would be a dream.
Look at the numbers. There are still pay equity issues all over the place, but in terms of participation, every other white collar industry puts technology to shame. 66% of staff attorneys are women. ~40% of biglaw partners are. And in law, 40% is a problem. In technology, it would be a dream.
And yet technology implementation is the single most accessible industry I can think of, with most of those, esp in Europe, who succeed at it, being largely autodidacts. Everything you need to learn is there and free and you can do it in your bedroom.
The industries you cite are largely people businesses with restricted knowledge paths and require intense experience and with outcome of individual projects being much more vague and often predetermined by the inputs they received when taking on the project.
> In technology, it would be a dream.
My feeling is that females in tech are largely suffering from the outcome of some inherent risk analysis that we experience. Girls are more likely to take definite paths with known success ratios.
This brings the question, why don't we have significant outliers in female in tech given the low barrier to entry at the root level.
The industries you cite are largely people businesses with restricted knowledge paths and require intense experience and with outcome of individual projects being much more vague and often predetermined by the inputs they received when taking on the project.
> In technology, it would be a dream.
My feeling is that females in tech are largely suffering from the outcome of some inherent risk analysis that we experience. Girls are more likely to take definite paths with known success ratios.
This brings the question, why don't we have significant outliers in female in tech given the low barrier to entry at the root level.
I'm not arguing what is required. I'm simply pointing out the adaptation some actors have used in similar circumstances. I'm also making no comment one way or another about women in tech.
I understood your argument, and my response was to put it in perspective. Law didn't fix this problem by coming up with rigid rules about men and women being alone in the same room together.
Law didn't fix this problem...
ISTM we're considering two different problems here. The first, and more important from society's POV, is that there aren't enough women working in the industry. The second, and for some much more personally important, is to avoid being sued for harassment. The people who worry about the latter may be grossly overestimating the danger, but their reactions to that overestimate could still make the first problem worse. Reactions like "same-sex environments", for instance.
ISTM we're considering two different problems here. The first, and more important from society's POV, is that there aren't enough women working in the industry. The second, and for some much more personally important, is to avoid being sued for harassment. The people who worry about the latter may be grossly overestimating the danger, but their reactions to that overestimate could still make the first problem worse. Reactions like "same-sex environments", for instance.
So by "putting in context", you're simply saying that other industries had other ways of dealing with things.
Ok. So what?
I would expect different people and different industries to respond differently. Maybe you don't. How various people in various industries react to external stimulus is beyond my knowledge. That's why I find it interesting.
Ok. So what?
I would expect different people and different industries to respond differently. Maybe you don't. How various people in various industries react to external stimulus is beyond my knowledge. That's why I find it interesting.
Pay not at parity = problem
Participation not at parity = problem
Harassment suits not at parity = everything is fine?
Participation not at parity = problem
Harassment suits not at parity = everything is fine?
Implicit in your comments is the idea that you can't work with women without the risk of lawsuits. This is classic victim-blaming.
The problem is not the lawsuits. The problem is harassment, and further, the men who are so incapable of not harassing women that they segregate their workplaces.
We should recognize that the number of lawsuits pales in comparison to the incidence of actual harassment. We should be blaming the perpetrators of this harassment, and the men who would avoid working with women rather than change their behavior. We should not be blaming the women who raise these suits, or decrying their nature, as there is a very real and serious problem of sexual harassment in our industry.
The problem is not the lawsuits. The problem is harassment, and further, the men who are so incapable of not harassing women that they segregate their workplaces.
We should recognize that the number of lawsuits pales in comparison to the incidence of actual harassment. We should be blaming the perpetrators of this harassment, and the men who would avoid working with women rather than change their behavior. We should not be blaming the women who raise these suits, or decrying their nature, as there is a very real and serious problem of sexual harassment in our industry.
Allegations of victim blaming tend to be used to shut down conversastion rather then contribute to it. There are times when mentioning victim blaming is appropriate, but you have to be extra careful with this concept.
If anything, this case is system-blaming. More importantly, it is looking at how the system works, and what unintended effects are attempts to improve have. Specifically, observing that the increase is lawsuits leads to the creating of single gender environments, harming other metrics of gender equality. There is no concept of blame in this observation. It is merely a conjecture about cause and effect which can be used to make more informed choices.
Having recognized this we may decide that sexual harrasment lawsuits are not worth it, in which case I may leave the country. Or we could look for ways to conduct these lawsuits in a way that is less damaging. Or we may decide to use/develop other responses to sexual harrasment before going to a lawsuit.
This is a discussion that needs to be had, and your response preculudes it.
If anything, this case is system-blaming. More importantly, it is looking at how the system works, and what unintended effects are attempts to improve have. Specifically, observing that the increase is lawsuits leads to the creating of single gender environments, harming other metrics of gender equality. There is no concept of blame in this observation. It is merely a conjecture about cause and effect which can be used to make more informed choices.
Having recognized this we may decide that sexual harrasment lawsuits are not worth it, in which case I may leave the country. Or we could look for ways to conduct these lawsuits in a way that is less damaging. Or we may decide to use/develop other responses to sexual harrasment before going to a lawsuit.
This is a discussion that needs to be had, and your response preculudes it.
Nothing of that nature was implied; rather, you read misogyny into the comment due to your own biases.
The original post was very careful not to put either sex in either role. It even went so far as to not exclude homosexual relations by suggesting that you'd want three people in the room despite a segregated workplace.
Your post, in contrast, insists that harassment suits are always filed by woman against men. It goes so far as to suggest these hypothetical employers must be men and that their motivation is an inability to control themselves.
The implication was simply that as sexual harassment cases become more costly, it may be pragmatic to take more drastic measures to prevent them. I'm very disgusted by your post.
The original post was very careful not to put either sex in either role. It even went so far as to not exclude homosexual relations by suggesting that you'd want three people in the room despite a segregated workplace.
Your post, in contrast, insists that harassment suits are always filed by woman against men. It goes so far as to suggest these hypothetical employers must be men and that their motivation is an inability to control themselves.
The implication was simply that as sexual harassment cases become more costly, it may be pragmatic to take more drastic measures to prevent them. I'm very disgusted by your post.
Allegations of "Victim blaming" are a classic tactic to shut down discussion by implying that anyone who steps out of the appropriate mental box will be deemed an accomplice.
You can invent whatever descriptions you wish, but it is victim-blaming. Vague threats of a public backlash against sexual harassment lawsuits is an attempt to blame women for filing them and attach implicit suspicions to their claims. Reminder that Tinder has confirmed the inappropriate messages.
Discussion about what, exactly? That women are not trusted enough to not bring false allegations, therefore men should always have witnesses to make sure that men are not victims of even false allegations?
Seriously, if you are the victim of a false allegation that is later proven to be false, then your reputation is not destroyed. If you are the victim of one instance of a false allegation that later reveals a pattern of bad behavior, then you should not have behaved badly in the first place.
Seriously, if you are the victim of a false allegation that is later proven to be false, then your reputation is not destroyed. If you are the victim of one instance of a false allegation that later reveals a pattern of bad behavior, then you should not have behaved badly in the first place.
Your post is an example of concern-trolling. You're implanting the idea that this lawsuit is part of some greater threat of unfounded sexual harrassment lawsuits, disregarding the fact that the inappropriate messages were confirmed by his employer. Additionally, you've "heard" that the filing of sexual harassment lawsuits has caused some sort of draconian same-sex policy, somewhere. You end with the threat that there will be a public backlash to "so many of these things" being filed by women, implying that they should keep quiet.
I was wondering a related question, which is whether or not there is a higher, similar, or lower incidence of sexual harassment in "technology" firms than other firms of similar size (number of employees, annual revenue).
It is not uncommon for people who work together, to get romantically involved in spite of advice against such relationships. But I don't see anything specifically 'tech' related that would make this more or less likely. Hence the question.
It is not uncommon for people who work together, to get romantically involved in spite of advice against such relationships. But I don't see anything specifically 'tech' related that would make this more or less likely. Hence the question.
It is not uncommon for people who work together, to get romantically involved in spite of advice against such relationships
Is there any correlation between long work-weeks and romantic relationships between employees? Have any studies been done of this?
I'm reminded of Philip Greenspun's "How To Make Your Software Engineers Work 80 Hours A Week" article [1] about ArsDigita where he got his employees to work crazy hours while he was dating one of his employees. That's the part that was most offensive to me when I first read it years ago ("girlfriend for me but not for thee"). Other parts offend me more these days, but I'm still wondering if a good policy against sexual harassment is to make sure your employees have time outside of work to find someone to copulate with.
[1] http://philip.greenspun.com/ancient-history/managing-softwar...
Is there any correlation between long work-weeks and romantic relationships between employees? Have any studies been done of this?
I'm reminded of Philip Greenspun's "How To Make Your Software Engineers Work 80 Hours A Week" article [1] about ArsDigita where he got his employees to work crazy hours while he was dating one of his employees. That's the part that was most offensive to me when I first read it years ago ("girlfriend for me but not for thee"). Other parts offend me more these days, but I'm still wondering if a good policy against sexual harassment is to make sure your employees have time outside of work to find someone to copulate with.
[1] http://philip.greenspun.com/ancient-history/managing-softwar...
There is a strong correlation between romantic involvement and shared stressful experiences. Its a movie trope but there have also been studies done. The last one I read about was in Scientific American in the late 90's/early 2000's. You can check 'romantic relationships and stress' on scholar.google.com and find lots of hits.
There is also a correlation between having an excuse to be close together and opportunity. This apparently got pretty bad for Microsoft employees on the road such that the company issued guidelines. But I don't know if corporate was any more or less affected.
There is also a correlation between having an excuse to be close together and opportunity. This apparently got pretty bad for Microsoft employees on the road such that the company issued guidelines. But I don't know if corporate was any more or less affected.
Call me cynical, but when I read all the comments on sites like this and others about these lawsuits in the tech industry, it leads me to believe that a lot of writers and editors somewhere are not idiots -- they're digging these things up and feeding them to us.
That didn't answer your question, I know. My point is that there are tons of tech companies. It can certainly appear to be a tremendous surge when in fact it's just a small extra effort made in reporting cases. Without a statistical survey we can't be sure.
We can be sure about the economics of creating content, though.
With this kind of visceral reaction, it's a publisher's dream. Not only can you report the allegation, then you can report the reply, then the comments from the community, then the play-by-play action in court, etc. Just gauge how much effort to put into it by how many pageviews you're pulling. Newspaper 101 stuff.
That didn't answer your question, I know. My point is that there are tons of tech companies. It can certainly appear to be a tremendous surge when in fact it's just a small extra effort made in reporting cases. Without a statistical survey we can't be sure.
We can be sure about the economics of creating content, though.
With this kind of visceral reaction, it's a publisher's dream. Not only can you report the allegation, then you can report the reply, then the comments from the community, then the play-by-play action in court, etc. Just gauge how much effort to put into it by how many pageviews you're pulling. Newspaper 101 stuff.
Call me naive, but when harrassment this egregious is exposed at a well-known tech company, I don't feel the need to stroke my chin and wonder if there's a media conspiracy to make it appear worse than it is. I don't even know how this could be made to look worse than it is. What possible spin could a publisher put on this that is not already present in the allegation and evidence?
I mean, it's well known but not well established - I highly doubt there's much sexual harassment in a typical corporate environment with an HR department.
Well, I'm not sure I agree that not much harassment goes on in more established companies, but you're absolutely right that at least they're more likely to have procedures in place for dealing with it.
This is why I'm astonished to see such strenuous effort go into confecting explanations why there might not really be a problem in startup culture. You've got young, inexperienced founders and a tendency to dispense with formal HR practises in favour of "cultural fit" - the ingredients are all there for horrible abuses of power, and yet when said abuses inevitably surface, there's an almost desperate effort to hand-wave them away as isolated incidents. It's bewildering, it really is.
Model View Culture have been publishing some superb work in this area, most relevantly in this article:
http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/hr-antipatterns-at-startu...
This is why I'm astonished to see such strenuous effort go into confecting explanations why there might not really be a problem in startup culture. You've got young, inexperienced founders and a tendency to dispense with formal HR practises in favour of "cultural fit" - the ingredients are all there for horrible abuses of power, and yet when said abuses inevitably surface, there's an almost desperate effort to hand-wave them away as isolated incidents. It's bewildering, it really is.
Model View Culture have been publishing some superb work in this area, most relevantly in this article:
http://modelviewculture.com/pieces/hr-antipatterns-at-startu...
anything specifically 'tech' related
Two possibilities come to mind.
One, the nerd/geek stereotype where those of us more interested in high tech are supposed to have worse social skills; this would lead to more defective attempts at starting relationships, and to more of the relationships that do happen going bad.
Two, the inherent necessary hubris of startup culture and the noise around "10x" or "rock-star" or "A-player" etc programmers, the apparent canonization of people like Jobs and Zuckerberg; the resulting pervasive sense of entitlement and superiority would also not make for healthy relationships.
Two possibilities come to mind.
One, the nerd/geek stereotype where those of us more interested in high tech are supposed to have worse social skills; this would lead to more defective attempts at starting relationships, and to more of the relationships that do happen going bad.
Two, the inherent necessary hubris of startup culture and the noise around "10x" or "rock-star" or "A-player" etc programmers, the apparent canonization of people like Jobs and Zuckerberg; the resulting pervasive sense of entitlement and superiority would also not make for healthy relationships.
He-said-she-said, bleh. And these things come to light after a breakup between the two of them. Seriously, who would trust what either of them say? It'll get settled in court no doubt, but let's not jump on the bandwagon here.
Edit: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm... - If this is real the guy is a real piece of shit. -This- is the type of guy who should be removed from his company. If the guy in Github was forced to leave this is probably a sure-thing.
Edit: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm... - If this is real the guy is a real piece of shit. -This- is the type of guy who should be removed from his company. If the guy in Github was forced to leave this is probably a sure-thing.
In the other article, there was a link to the actual court filing with exhibits. The cofounder was definitely harassing her, unless the text messages were faked or grossly out of context.
You could say that she egged him on and was not exactly the pinnacle of maturity, but harassment is illegal and egging someone on is not.
You could say that she egged him on and was not exactly the pinnacle of maturity, but harassment is illegal and egging someone on is not.
The texts: http://www.buzzfeed.com/sapna/tinder-sued-for-sexual-harassm...
Edit: changing my opinion on this one. Originally I thought, reading those texts, it was a case of relationship drama at work, from what seemed to be the end of an existing consensual relationship. Relationships at work are dumb, but not illegal.
However, texting "you'll regret acting this way" to a subordinate is pretty damning.
Edit: changing my opinion on this one. Originally I thought, reading those texts, it was a case of relationship drama at work, from what seemed to be the end of an existing consensual relationship. Relationships at work are dumb, but not illegal.
However, texting "you'll regret acting this way" to a subordinate is pretty damning.
> unless the text messages were faked
It's not that far-fetched to believe that. The texts are just screen captures of iMessage, not phone company records.
It's not that far-fetched to believe that. The texts are just screen captures of iMessage, not phone company records.
It's not impossible, but it would be really really stupid to forge messages that could conceivably be reconstructed in your motion to the court.
It's not that no one has ever done something really really stupid but it's not unreasonable to assume, for now, that the messages are not forged.
It's not that no one has ever done something really really stupid but it's not unreasonable to assume, for now, that the messages are not forged.
> It's not impossible, but it would be really really stupid to forge messages that could conceivably be reconstructed in your motion to the court.
True, but apparently even with a court order you can only get text message records from so far back. Two years would definitely be stretching it.
The reason I'm skeptical here is because the complaint is very much focused on her being recognized (now) as a cofounder, and the sexual harassment stuff is a convenient bludgeon.
True, but apparently even with a court order you can only get text message records from so far back. Two years would definitely be stretching it.
The reason I'm skeptical here is because the complaint is very much focused on her being recognized (now) as a cofounder, and the sexual harassment stuff is a convenient bludgeon.
> He-said-she-said, bleh
Documented by text messages in the complaint
Documented by text messages in the complaint
Then that's good, no more hearsay nonsense. Let's hope justice is served. The complaint wasn't linked in the original article.
TIL it's a bad idea to date your direct report or your boss.
If this really is a TIL then it needs more reporting. Every professional should be aware of this guideline, and why it's important.
EDIT on re-reading this was pretty obvious sarcasm that I missed.
EDIT on re-reading this was pretty obvious sarcasm that I missed.
Frankly that was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I'm poking fun at the way we all obsess over details, like who did or said what when or where they did or said it. There isn't a safe or appropriate way for a manager and a direct report to date. I'm sure it works out sometimes, but that's like the time I went unicycling next to a steep cliff while juggling chainsaws. I'm alive, so I must have done something right, but the activity still can't be recommended.
unicycling next to a steep cliff while juggling chainsaws
Why do I get the feeling I'm going to see that in an XKCD strip sometime soon?
Why do I get the feeling I'm going to see that in an XKCD strip sometime soon?
Hahaha, I know right. You think this is common sense...yet here we are.
> He-said-she-said, bleh.
It sounds like there is documentary evidence, so I'm wondering why you would characterize it like that.
It sounds like there is documentary evidence, so I'm wondering why you would characterize it like that.
"Through that process, it has become clear that Mr. Mateen sent private messages to Ms. Wolfe containing inappropriate content." <http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/06/30/tinder-sexual-...
The rest of the allegations are unproven, but the allegation that Mr. Mateen harassed Ms. Wolfe is, for all intents and purposes, 100% factual. There's no reason to defend this guy.