5 ms·

> H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS. You're right, and here's the thing. It seems both women who've come forward would ha

> H/R ACTS AND WILL ALWAYS ACT IN THE COMPANY'S BEST INTERESTS. NOT YOURS. You're right, and here's the thing. It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. Similarly, it's surprising to me that Uber HR hasn't done the mental calculus to figure out that these women have a solid case, and just fix the problem. Or, most disturbingly, Uber HR DID do the mental calculus, determined neither woman would sue; and, therefore, made the correct choices as "best for the company." Either way, I'm taking Lyft.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
> It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. Is it possible that their contracts are written in such a way as to preclude this? Which if so is gross and shouldn't be allowed by contract law IMO, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.
- mpweiher 10y ago
  I severely doubt such a contract would hold up in court.
  - bigiain 10y ago
    Are you certain enough of that you'd personally risk taking on Uber's legal team using your own time, money, and reputation?
    - mpweiher 10y ago
      Let's just say that I was a little sad that my case (not Uber) was settled via the works-council dispute resolution mechanism... So: yes. I'd definitely talk to a lawyer in that case.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    The Ellen Pao case found that, at least in California, an arbitration clause did not hold up. Hence why, despite her employer having such a clause in her contract, she was still able to go to trial.
vkou 10y ago
> It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. Reasons to pursue sexual harassment litigation: * You may make some money. Reasons to not pursue sexual harassment litigation: * You will have to devote an enormous amount of money, time, energy, health, and your emotional well-being. * Your lawyers will take half the settlement, either in up front fees, or as a portion of the bounty. * You will get to share, and then be brutally cross-examined about all the worst bullshit you had to endure in a courtroom. * With so much money on the line, you will trigger a smear campaign against you, whose impact will persist long after the trial concludes. * You want to program, instead of dealing with legal bullshit. * You just want this nightmare to be over, instead of it being brought up over, and over again. * You don't want to have your name permanently associated with "Sues your employers for millions of dollars". Good luck getting a job after that. * If for whatever reason you lose, you will get to enjoy all the damage to your reputation, all the trauma and indignities that you had to re-live, the black mark on your employment record (Who would hire a liar who sues her employers?), and you'll probably be counter-sued by Uber. I hope you're independently wealthy. It's easy to suggest the nuclear option when you have no skin in the game.
- TillE 10y ago
  I completely agree with all this, I just think it's frustrating for a lot of people when you see a terrible situation that's supposed to have judicial remedies, but in practice that system just doesn't work.
  - jellicle 10y ago
    This is sort of the best of all possible worlds. Any time there's a problem, everyone involved can just say "oh, she should sue" and "why doesn't she sue, there are lots of legal remedies". And then if she spoke with a lawyer, that lawyer would point to all the problems listed above plus many more (the difficulty of proving damages, for one) and would almost certainly try to dissuade her from suing no matter how grievous her treatment, and if she did sue, she would likely lose. The legal remedies are so weak as to be non-existent, but their existence is beneficial to wrong-doers, who can hide behind them and pretend they are effective and powerful.
mpweiher 10y ago
> multi-millions in damages. It's surprising > to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. I also find this surprising to the point of puzzling. Yes, HR (+legal) works for the company, ALWAYS. However, protecting the company from multi-million dollar lawsuits and potential negative publicity certainly falls within the remit, and removing offenders and mollifying victims would be the way to go. So something doesn't quite add up, and I have a hard time believing "oh, we know that they won't sue" would be sufficient. Then again...hubris.
sverige 10y ago
Please don't misunderstand the following comment to mean that I am defending Uber. I quit using Uber over a year ago when I first learned of some of their business practices. >It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. These cases are tough to win, even in a liberal jurisdiction like SF. For example, does "Amy" have any witnesses that are willing to testify about what they saw? Sure, a subpoena can compel them to testify, but if the men who were present are still working there, how likely is it that they are going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under questioning? The calculus becomes "keep my current job that is paying my bills, and maybe get a raise/promotion soon" vs. "stick my neck out for someone who no longer works here." Sure, there are good lawyers who could maybe trip them up, but now you're treating what should be friendly or neutral witnesses as hostile witnesses. And Uber has some good lawyers too, obviously. Further, even if some of these guys have moved on to other companies, they have to calculate how testifying in Amy's favor might come back to bite them later. With a guy like Travis who lacks good character (according to all the accounts I've read, anyway), it will come back to bite them sooner than later. So "open-and-shut" is usually not really at all, but rather a less than 50% chance of recovering damages after years of difficult litigation. Unless, of course, you have lots of really good documentary evidence that's admissible.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

> It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. Is it possible that their contracts are written in such a way as to preclude this? Which if so is gross and shouldn't be allowed by contract law IMO, but it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

mpweiher 10y ago
I severely doubt such a contract would hold up in court.
- bigiain 10y ago
  Are you certain enough of that you'd personally risk taking on Uber's legal team using your own time, money, and reputation?
  - mpweiher 10y ago
    Let's just say that I was a little sad that my case (not Uber) was settled via the works-council dispute resolution mechanism... So: yes. I'd definitely talk to a lawyer in that case.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- st3v3r 10y ago
  The Ellen Pao case found that, at least in California, an arbitration clause did not hold up. Hence why, despite her employer having such a clause in her contract, she was still able to go to trial.

vkou 10y ago

> It's surprising to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. Reasons to pursue sexual harassment litigation: * You may make some money. Reasons to not pursue sexual harassment litigation: * You will have to devote an enormous amount of money, time, energy, health, and your emotional well-being. * Your lawyers will take half the settlement, either in up front fees, or as a portion of the bounty. * You will get to share, and then be brutally cross-examined about all the worst bullshit you had to endure in a courtroom. * With so much money on the line, you will trigger a smear campaign against you, whose impact will persist long after the trial concludes. * You want to program, instead of dealing with legal bullshit. * You just want this nightmare to be over, instead of it being brought up over, and over again. * You don't want to have your name permanently associated with "Sues your employers for millions of dollars". Good luck getting a job after that. * If for whatever reason you lose, you will get to enjoy all the damage to your reputation, all the trauma and indignities that you had to re-live, the black mark on your employment record (Who would hire a liar who sues her employers?), and you'll probably be counter-sued by Uber. I hope you're independently wealthy. It's easy to suggest the nuclear option when you have no skin in the game.

TillE 10y ago
I completely agree with all this, I just think it's frustrating for a lot of people when you see a terrible situation that's supposed to have judicial remedies, but in practice that system just doesn't work.
- jellicle 10y ago
  This is sort of the best of all possible worlds. Any time there's a problem, everyone involved can just say "oh, she should sue" and "why doesn't she sue, there are lots of legal remedies". And then if she spoke with a lawyer, that lawyer would point to all the problems listed above plus many more (the difficulty of proving damages, for one) and would almost certainly try to dissuade her from suing no matter how grievous her treatment, and if she did sue, she would likely lose. The legal remedies are so weak as to be non-existent, but their existence is beneficial to wrong-doers, who can hide behind them and pretend they are effective and powerful.

mpweiher 10y ago

> multi-millions in damages. It's surprising > to me that neither have pursued Uber in this regard. I also find this surprising to the point of puzzling. Yes, HR (+legal) works for the company, ALWAYS. However, protecting the company from multi-million dollar lawsuits and potential negative publicity certainly falls within the remit, and removing offenders and mollifying victims would be the way to go. So something doesn't quite add up, and I have a hard time believing "oh, we know that they won't sue" would be sufficient. Then again...hubris.

sverige 10y ago

Please don't misunderstand the following comment to mean that I am defending Uber. I quit using Uber over a year ago when I first learned of some of their business practices. >It seems both women who've come forward would have open-and-shut cases against Uber for multi-millions in damages. These cases are tough to win, even in a liberal jurisdiction like SF. For example, does "Amy" have any witnesses that are willing to testify about what they saw? Sure, a subpoena can compel them to testify, but if the men who were present are still working there, how likely is it that they are going to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under questioning? The calculus becomes "keep my current job that is paying my bills, and maybe get a raise/promotion soon" vs. "stick my neck out for someone who no longer works here." Sure, there are good lawyers who could maybe trip them up, but now you're treating what should be friendly or neutral witnesses as hostile witnesses. And Uber has some good lawyers too, obviously. Further, even if some of these guys have moved on to other companies, they have to calculate how testifying in Amy's favor might come back to bite them later. With a guy like Travis who lacks good character (according to all the accounts I've read, anyway), it will come back to bite them sooner than later. So "open-and-shut" is usually not really at all, but rather a less than 50% chance of recovering damages after years of difficult litigation. Unless, of course, you have lots of really good documentary evidence that's admissible.