4 ms·

Yes, but starting the PIP after there is a documented pregnancy announcement to management isn't going to shield them from liability I suspect.

wpietri 11y ago
My first lawyer taught me a very valuable lesson: the important question isn't whether you'll win the suit eventually, it's whether you can afford to go the distance. Doing the PIP after doesn't increase the distance as much as doing it before, but it definitely makes it harder to sue than if they just fired you the day after a positive performance review.
- rapind 11y ago
  Is it fantasy that the payday would be significant enough that a decent lawyer would take the case on commission? Seems to me that a lawyer who had the resources to go the distance could totally make this an easy and profitable win for a client who's getting on with her life in the meantime. Amazon's lawyers are probably expensive right? They also have to risk setting precedents and future cases not being so easily intimidated. Seems like they would have a lot to lose letting this go to court, even if they intend to drag it out.
  - exelius 11y ago
    > Amazon's lawyers are probably expensive right? They also have to risk setting precedents and future cases not being so easily intimidated. Seems like they would have a lot to lose letting this go to court, even if they intend to drag it out. But that's the thing: they don't need to let it go to court, they just have to drag out the pre-trial proceedings for a few years until you've either moved on with your life or forgotten enough of the details. Most cases settle out of court, but before that happens there is due process that a good HR defense attorney can absolutely stretch out for years. As far as their lawyers, it costs a big company like Amazon very little, since the lawyers are likely on salary. They would probably hire an outside attorney to represent them in person at a trial, but since the vast majority (>95%) of cases settle before they make it that far, their internal HR lawyers would probably handle most of the grunt work of filing paperwork until someone actually needs to show up at the court house. Also it's probably not as much money as you think; unless it can be proven that the company's actions were malicious and intentional against a protected class, you probably won't see much more than 6 months salary. The problem is in gathering the evidence to prove this and keeping track of it over the course of a few years.
    - rapind 11y ago
      So it is a fantasy then I guess... Seems like there might be an opportunity for a large firm to handle the other side of it in a similar manner by using efficiencies of scale. Becoming the defacto law firm for these cases and managing a large volume for a smaller margin. But then I guess it's just more lawyers keeping other lawyers employed.
      - exelius 11y ago
        That's pretty much how it works today; though there's not one single massive law firm because employment laws vary by state and city. But lawyers do specialize in this type of case at the city/state level, and it wouldn't surprise me if there is a "standard settlement" scale that says what % of annual salary the employer is willing to pay to make the case go away (I know this exists for auto insurance cases because I used to have a client who was a stereotypical ambulance chaser). But generally you're right -- when you sue someone, only the lawyers win. At a minimum, a cursory background check would turn up the lawsuit and potentially damage your chances at getting another job. It's the same as with whistleblower cases: you have to ask yourself if the injustice you're trying to correct is so big that it's worth potentially destroying your career (whistleblower laws promise huge rewards for exposing behavior but they can be very difficult to collect on and generally make you unhireable). That said, if a specific company (like Amazon/Google are rumored to do) routinely does things like this, they could face a class action suit. Class action suits are a company's worst nightmare because they are run by the lawyers -- who have every incentive to be as public as possible about the proceedings. Dragging a company's name though the mud in the media is a good way to get them to settle on your terms, and the former employees aren't at the forefront of the case so there's little downside to it. It actually wouldn't surprise me if we see a class action suit come out of this; this kind of treatment is common enough in the tech industry and there's a lot of money on the table if a law firm can put together a case. But again, in a class action suit the lawyers keep most of the money, so ultimately they're the biggest winners.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- fweespeech 11y ago
  Yeah. It increases the cost to sue but I suspect pregnancy -> PIP -> cancer -> terminated insurance -> effective demotion on return should be winnable in a perfect world. They just know no one is going to fight it and they can make it expensive enough its not worth it.

wpietri 11y ago

My first lawyer taught me a very valuable lesson: the important question isn't whether you'll win the suit eventually, it's whether you can afford to go the distance. Doing the PIP after doesn't increase the distance as much as doing it before, but it definitely makes it harder to sue than if they just fired you the day after a positive performance review.

rapind 11y ago
Is it fantasy that the payday would be significant enough that a decent lawyer would take the case on commission? Seems to me that a lawyer who had the resources to go the distance could totally make this an easy and profitable win for a client who's getting on with her life in the meantime. Amazon's lawyers are probably expensive right? They also have to risk setting precedents and future cases not being so easily intimidated. Seems like they would have a lot to lose letting this go to court, even if they intend to drag it out.
- exelius 11y ago
  > Amazon's lawyers are probably expensive right? They also have to risk setting precedents and future cases not being so easily intimidated. Seems like they would have a lot to lose letting this go to court, even if they intend to drag it out. But that's the thing: they don't need to let it go to court, they just have to drag out the pre-trial proceedings for a few years until you've either moved on with your life or forgotten enough of the details. Most cases settle out of court, but before that happens there is due process that a good HR defense attorney can absolutely stretch out for years. As far as their lawyers, it costs a big company like Amazon very little, since the lawyers are likely on salary. They would probably hire an outside attorney to represent them in person at a trial, but since the vast majority (>95%) of cases settle before they make it that far, their internal HR lawyers would probably handle most of the grunt work of filing paperwork until someone actually needs to show up at the court house. Also it's probably not as much money as you think; unless it can be proven that the company's actions were malicious and intentional against a protected class, you probably won't see much more than 6 months salary. The problem is in gathering the evidence to prove this and keeping track of it over the course of a few years.
  - rapind 11y ago
    So it is a fantasy then I guess... Seems like there might be an opportunity for a large firm to handle the other side of it in a similar manner by using efficiencies of scale. Becoming the defacto law firm for these cases and managing a large volume for a smaller margin. But then I guess it's just more lawyers keeping other lawyers employed.
    - exelius 11y ago
      That's pretty much how it works today; though there's not one single massive law firm because employment laws vary by state and city. But lawyers do specialize in this type of case at the city/state level, and it wouldn't surprise me if there is a "standard settlement" scale that says what % of annual salary the employer is willing to pay to make the case go away (I know this exists for auto insurance cases because I used to have a client who was a stereotypical ambulance chaser). But generally you're right -- when you sue someone, only the lawyers win. At a minimum, a cursory background check would turn up the lawsuit and potentially damage your chances at getting another job. It's the same as with whistleblower cases: you have to ask yourself if the injustice you're trying to correct is so big that it's worth potentially destroying your career (whistleblower laws promise huge rewards for exposing behavior but they can be very difficult to collect on and generally make you unhireable). That said, if a specific company (like Amazon/Google are rumored to do) routinely does things like this, they could face a class action suit. Class action suits are a company's worst nightmare because they are run by the lawyers -- who have every incentive to be as public as possible about the proceedings. Dragging a company's name though the mud in the media is a good way to get them to settle on your terms, and the former employees aren't at the forefront of the case so there's little downside to it. It actually wouldn't surprise me if we see a class action suit come out of this; this kind of treatment is common enough in the tech industry and there's a lot of money on the table if a law firm can put together a case. But again, in a class action suit the lawyers keep most of the money, so ultimately they're the biggest winners.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
fweespeech 11y ago
Yeah. It increases the cost to sue but I suspect pregnancy -> PIP -> cancer -> terminated insurance -> effective demotion on return should be winnable in a perfect world. They just know no one is going to fight it and they can make it expensive enough its not worth it.