15 ms·

Microsoft Intern’s Rape Claim Highlights Struggle to Combat Sex Discrimination

108 points by Doches 9y ago

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
aero142 9y ago
Most of these articles I have read in the past few years always leave me with the same question. Why is there not more focus on the police investigation. Why did they police decide not to press charges? If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? Aren't the police more accountable to the electorate than Microsoft's internal HR policy. I feel like there are a lot of questions that aren't brought up. Do people believe that the standard of evidence for Police is too high but isn't politically possible to change? If the police standard of evidence is too high, what should the standard of evidence be? What should the standard of evidence be for Microsoft? If someone files a police complain but that complaint is dismissed for lack of evidence, how exactly should Microsoft evaluate that claim? I just feel like many of these articles stop short of discussing obvious questions, and it leaves me suspicious.
- wccrawford 9y ago
  Many of them focus on accusations and demand justice without actually going through our "justice system". For example, >And despite the allegations against him, Microsoft also hired her accused rapist. I don't expect any company to act on allegations other than to apply some caution, which is probably already being applied anyhow. It's clear that our police don't take rape seriously enough, but that doesn't mean that companies should start being judge, jury and executioner instead.
  - aero142 9y ago
    >> I don't expect any company to act on allegations other than to apply some caution, which is probably already being applied anyhow. I don't agree with this. Once an accuser has filed a criminal complaint of rape, I think companies should do a lot to protect that person from a co-worker. However, once those charges are dismissed for lack of evidence, which happened for reasons not covered in this article, the situation changes. I would like someone to tell me what Microsoft should do after charges are dropped.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Failing to address workplace sexual harassment (or any of the other potential workplace issuesthat arise from failing to act on information relating to this kind of issue between coworkers) merely because a related criminal complaint was dismissed is a good way to get into deep liability, since sexual harassment (and many of the other sources of liability which could become relevant based on a failure to act) don't require the necessary elements of the crime of rape, and as a statutory tort rather than a crime, have a lower standard of proof.
    - throwaway_45 9y ago
      It said they would never be on the same teams etc. so maybe they believed her. However if I was an employer just from liability sense would just just not hire the guy. I am sure they are plenty of other good applicants. If anything does happen that is an easy multi million dollar lawsuit. In all honesty I wouldn't want to hire her either. Just stay away from any possible issues.
      - jsjohnst 9y ago
        > It said they would never be on the same teams Read further, near the end the article states that after a re-org, they ended up on the same team. As far as I’m concerned, that’s very poor form of Microsoft.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > judge, jury and executioner Oh come on. It wasn't even a firing decision, it was a decision on which interns to hire. They can't have been short of applicants. How about not hiring the guy with the rape allegation? Alternatively, if you believe the woman is entirely lying, why wasn't she barred from hiring? No, they just dropped the question on the floor entirely.
    - bufferoverflow 9y ago
      What if I allege you raped me? Should you be unemployed for life now? Due process is important. Raped women should press charges, there should be an investigation, the trial, and prison time.
      - rayiner 9y ago
        Due process is what’s required to take away someone’s liberty, not to deny a job. When my boss asks me “hey, what do you think of Jim?” I can say “we can’t hire him, he was a huge asshole to everyone in school and I think he’s untrustworthy.” I can do that, and we’ll not hire Jim, and I won’t even have to submit a notarized official statement.
        bufferoverflow 9y ago
        You can say that, but if he finds out, you can get sued for defamation. That's why most companies, when you ask for a reference, will not say anything beyond your dates of employment and maybe the names of the projects you were working on.
        tptacek 9y ago
        In reality, the majority of destructive rumors take the form of "Bob was impossible to work with", not "Bob sexually assaulted Avery". Meanwhile: a bogus accusation of rape is far more actionable than a bogus accusation of being an asshole; if you actually worked with Bob at all, you probably can't be sued for that at all, since things that can be construed as opinions cannot be the basis of a valid defamation claim. Unlike sexual assault, which, as a crime, is probably defamatory per se. So relative to the set of all possible destruct rumors, allegations of sexual assault stand as outliers for how uniquely protected the accused actually are.
- DanBC 9y ago
  Police and criminal courts use a high burden of proof: "beyond all reasonable doubt". Anyone else doesn't have to use that. If someone who's called a rapist sues for defamation the courts will use "balance of probability". People get confused by the apparent contradiction between "innocent until proved guilty" and the fact that someone not prosecuted (or even prosecuted and found not guilty) may have done the crime. For an example see the comments about football player Ched Evans being found "innocent" - he wasn't, at all. He was found "not guilty" which spans the range from "he definitely didn't do it" right up to "he almost certainly did it, but the prosecution didn't persuade me beyond all reasonable doubt". So if you're Microsoft you can do what you like. If it ends up in court it's probably going to be "balance of probabilities".
  - rosser 9y ago
    If I had a very finite number of wishes, I'd probably be strongly inclined to burn one of them on making people somehow meaningfully understand the distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent".
- RyJones 9y ago
  Prosecutors decide if charges are pressed, not police. Police gather evidence, prosecutors build a case and decide to prosecute. Prosecutors are elected in King County (where both Seattle and Redmond are located). The choice about which crimes to prosecute with what vigor is very much a political question, and I agree with you strongly, we need more discussion about it.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? This is also a priority as the police are generally bad at this apart from a few places which have made it a priority. There is a national backlog in the US of unprocessed rape evidence kits: http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-rape-kits-legislation-20170525-story.html http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-rape-kits-legisl... > What should the standard of evidence be for Microsoft? See other comment, but civil standards rather than criminal standards sound like a good place to start. But really consider the normal standards of "evidence" at work; people are fired for all sorts of reasons on the flimsiest of evidence all the time. Remember that Microsoft was a pioneer of "stack ranking" which would sack 10% of employees annually simply for relative performance on the judgement of their manager. > I just feel like many of these articles stop short of discussing obvious questions A separation is usually maintained between "news" and "opinion", but I agree that journalism is often very bad at giving context.
  - aero142 9y ago
    I don’t believe that a police determination that this case would not be presecuted is a matter of opinion. The facts of why that decision was made is a very important fact that is relevant for me in how I feel about Microsofts actions.
    - pjc50 9y ago
      > I don’t believe that a police determination that this case would not be presecuted is a matter of opinion I think you might want to research this a bit more; it's often a matter of prejudice.
      - aero142 9y ago
        What I was responding to was a claim that the police investigation was not included in the article because news tries to separate it's news from opinion. If the police did not decide to press charges without any reason, then this can be discussed as part of a news article.
- rayiner 9y ago
  Rape cases are hard to prove, and prosecutors would rather go for things that are easy to prove, like drugs. But courts and the police aren’t the only aspect of our society charged with ensuring justice. This should be obvious to anyone on HN. Entrepreneurs don’t file a lawsuit every time someone screws them on a business deal. And if someone says “we shouldn’t go into business with that guy—he’s shady,” nobody asks “well if he did what you’re accusing him of doing, why didn’t you file a lawsuit?” Reputation systems are important to fill these gaps. And in a reputation system, where peoples’ freedom isn’t on the line, a different standard of review is appropriate. If someone says “we shouldn’t hire this guy, I know he cheated in his classes.” Nobody says “well can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?” That’s not how things work.
  - aperrien 9y ago
    The downside of this is that reputation systems can be wrecked with rumor. A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can take the first step. However, I don't know what's going to work to take people with vast amounts of power out of power for wrongdoing, either. What we've done in the past doesn't appear to have consistently worked. So here we are, unfortunately.
    - tptacek 9y ago
      Then turn the question back around on itself. If someone wrecks your professional reputation with a rumor, why don't you sue them? Your burden of proof is far lower in a civil defamation suit than the criminal case being advocated here for rape victims.
      - cperciva 9y ago
        If someone wrecks your professional reputation with a rumor, why don't you sue them? Trivial but serious answer: You might not know. Harvey Weinstein got Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino blacklisted, and neither of them knew why they suddenly weren't getting roles. It would be nice if we could build a gossip network which was immune to malicious gossip, but I don't know how one would go about doing that.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  I was just reading a personal account of rape where it was claimed that most of her circle of friends had experienced rape at the hands of police, so possibly that's a good place to start. Also, here's a couple of year old article that takes head on the question of how police deal with rape accusations. I can't recommend it enough, it won a Pulizter: https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an...
- DoreenMichele 9y ago
  Why is there not more focus on the police investigation. Why did they police decide not to press charges? If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? I'm a woman. I have been raped. I also have two adult sons. So, here are some issues as I see it: First, if you lower the burden of proof for rape because it is rape, then you open the door to men having their lives ruined because some woman wants their job, is mad he won't leave his wife for her, or whatever. Women are human too. We aren't all paragons of virtue simply for having been born with different bits between our legs. So if you set a low standard for convicting a man of rape, you open up a different huge can of worms. Second, human sexual morality is all kinds of messy and complicated. Date rape routinely involves alcohol, yet if you tell women "Play defensively and don't drink and don't get so drunk that you can't drive home and need to crash at some guy's place where he can rape your inebriated, unconscious body," now you are blaming the victim. If we told someone "It's a rough neighborhood, so lock your doors." that would be good advice, not victim blaming. But make it about sex and try to give women practical advice, and suddenly you are impinging on their right to do any damn thing they so please. I mean, I have seen an article where someone was literally quoted as saying "A woman should be able to walk naked down the street and be safe from rape." Is it okay for men to wander the streets naked? Last I checked, the answer was no. Why are we making up this ridiculous scenario? Additionally, because in a court case you can't realistically lower the legal evidentiary bar, going through a court trial after a sexual assault is quite the ordeal. It isn't a sympathetic, hand-holding oh, honey, you poor thing experience. You will essentially be treated like you are lying, because the reality is that you could be. Another thing that is incredibly hard to talk about at all is that we have things like BDSM and cultural standards that men are supposed to initiate, etc. So there is no bright line between a man pursuing a woman and a man harassing a woman or pressuring her into sex, which could then come back to bite him when she decides it constituted rape. I strongly suspect some men genuinely are surprised at being called a rapist after the fact. To their mind, it was consensual. There are no simple, easy, straight forward cures for that last issue. I don't know how we are going to fix it. Perhaps the outpouring of #MeToos and multiple cases currently ongoing against powerful men will change the standard, but not without a lot of blood in the water. I read some of the articles where multiple women have accused a rich, powerful of man of sexual assault and the man often denies it and swears it was consensual. Given my experience of human sexuality, I suspect a lot of these men firmly believe that -- because men are supposed to be the aggressors and rich, powerful men can be oblivious to just how much pressure their wealth and power can represent for a woman they are pursuing. It's complicated and a desire for a nice simple solution in the name of justice tends to just lead to other injustices, not actual solutions.
- chickenfries 9y ago
  > Why is there not more focus on the police investigation. Why did they police decide not to press charges? So, you might not find it in the same article, but if you want to do the research you can find out the answer to this question. And there are a lot of answers. Here's on aspect: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/16/untested-rape-kits-evidence-across-usa/29902199/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/16/untested-rape...
- Spooky23 9y ago
  Rape is a difficult crime to investigate because by definition it is a he said, she said affair. It’s doubly difficult when the perpetrator is a date or acquaintance. For the victim it’s particularly difficult as she will generally get branded a slut by the defense. On cross examination, the defense attorney can pretty easily rip the victim up. Microsoft’s position is unconscionable in my opinion. This wasn’t a frivolous accusation — the victim made a police report and got a rape kit done. The intern is an at-will hire... he could be fired for any reason or no reason. Microsoft HR would probably had fired him if he stole her purse, but instead forced this woman to work in proximity to her rapist and hires the guy. Give me a break.
  - bsder 9y ago
    > Microsoft HR would probably had fired him if he stole her purse, but instead forced this woman to work in proximity to her rapist and hires the guy. Microsoft HR would certainly NOT have done anything if she ACCUSED him of stealing her purse with no other evidence. And, your way of thinking is not good for the victim, either. If I'm Microsoft HR following your advice, I will simply fire BOTH and now I can wash my hands of the problem.
- mnm1 9y ago
  Why would police try to solve rape and murder cases when arresting people for drug possession/loitering/panhandling is easier, simpler, and guaranteed? I wish I could add a /sarcasm tag to this, but it is not sarcasm. When normal everyday activities are criminalized and the police is incentivized simply by the number of arrests they make, why wouldn't they go for the low hanging fruit? It's not like police have ethics or honor to guide them. They are a brute force machine of state violence without morals or ethics. Expecting anything but the bare minimum from police is delusional. Hell, most of the time, expecting the bare minimum is delusional. If expecting police not to murder innocent civilians is clearly too high of an expectation--it is in the US--expecting them to solve rape and murder cases is a stratospheric, ridiculous expectation. Not to mention that many citizens are simply terrified of police. How are we, citizens, supposed to keep these thugs in check when they can legally murder us for no reason without any recourse whatsoever? Sure, if it came up on a ballot, I'd vote for reform because a ballot is secret. Expecting people to stand up to police and voice their concerns in public, putting their own lives and the lives of their family in danger in a futile attempt at police reform, is simply too much to ask of ordinary citizens. Also, most of the people that don't fear police aren't even aware of the problems with police. In this way, nothing gets done.
- Lazare 9y ago
  > If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? The stereotypical case of rape would involve two people who know each other, may have had a prior intimate relationship, and then did something behind closed doors with no witnesses. One person will claim it was consensual sex or, failing that, that they had a reasonable yet mistaken belief that it was consensual sex. The other person will claim it was non-consensual sex, and that the first person did not have a reasonable believe that consent was present. What are the police meant to do with that? Both parties agree that they were together, in the room, behind closed doors, and had sex; the disagreement hinges over extremely specific details about what was said and how it was interpreted. Classic police tools (checking alibis, interviewing witnesses, pulling security camera footage to track someone's movements, speculating about motives, following money, running DNA tests, checking forensics) are all totally useless here. It's possible the justice system is failing to bring charges in cases where there is a strong chance of proving a crime occurred beyond reasonable doubt, but the nature of rape makes most cases extremely hard to prove, as the linked example makes clear. Here: "The [woman's] colleagues took her out for drinks [...] after a night of drinking, she crashed with a male intern and his friend who lived in a group house nearby. She fell asleep in the basement [...] but during the night [...] the male intern [...] “forcibly penetrated her while she was sleeping”." That's her story and I have no reason to think it's false. But here's the thing: All the guy has to do is say is something like "oh, I went down to check on her, she was awake, we chatted a bit, she seemed sober, we flirted, I propositioned her, she said sure, we had sex, I gave her a kiss, and left her to sleep" (or some variation of that; basically anything that expresses a reason why a reasonable person in his shoes would have believed she was consenting). And here's the thing: His story doesn't need to be true; it just need to be possibly true, because a conviction would require proving it was untrue beyond reasonable doubt. As long as the male intern says something that implies he had a reasonable belief in consent, and there's no third party witnesses willing to testify to undermine his claims, the justice system is powerless. And rightly so. (If he was dumb enough to claim they hadn't had sex at all, and the rape kit proved otherwise, then he'd be in trouble, of course. The rape cases that the justice system can deal with are the ones that hinge on whether or not someone was in the room, or whether or not intercourse took place. Ie, the rare easy ones.) > Do people believe that the standard of evidence for Police is too high but isn't politically possible to change? Not at all. It's good that the justice system works by requiring crimes to be proven to a jury of one's peers beyond reasonable doubt, and that shouldn't change. > If someone files a police complain but that complaint is dismissed for lack of evidence, how exactly should Microsoft evaluate that claim? Microsoft should evaluate the claim at face value. What the police do is entirely separate. If one intern is convicted (and only then) Microsoft can decide if they want to hire a rapist. Until then, they can look at the fact that two of their interns have had an extremely unpleasant encounter. Deciding to hire both, and then assigning them to the same team is clearly the wrong solution, whatever did (or didn't) happen that night.
g09980 9y ago
(Deleted)
- froindt 9y ago
  When you stop it there it's awkward. >, the male intern sexually assaulted her When you finish the thought from the author, it's less clunky. Its saying "her lawyer wrote that during the night the male intern sexually assaulted her".
jxi 9y ago
Why would she go back to Microsoft if her rapist was hired back as well?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
spraak 9y ago
> In the meantime, she was required to keep working alongside the man. When she discussed getting a restraining order with Microsoft, HR told her if she wanted one, she’d need to change teams, her lawyer wrote. She liked the work and her boss, so she stayed put for the rest of the summer. It really sounds crazy, but I can understand it. I was sexually assaulted by my boss (and I am a male and so was my boss) and couldn't understand my wife's anger when I said I'd still be working for him. Luckily I came to understand how poor a decision that would have been and I quit.
- org3432 9y ago
  That is really astonishing.
- EpicBlackCrayon 9y ago
  That part of the article fucking boggles my mind.
  - Steeeve 9y ago
    That is bizarre. An HR rep's job is to minimize the company's liabilities, not expand them. I understand not shifting employee job functions based on an unproven accusation. If there's a restraining order in place, it's not her problem. It's his. He's restrained. He has to go to his HR rep and say "I can't legally work next to this person, what happens?" That's only one side of the story, though.
    - shmed 9y ago
      The article clearly says that HR offered to switch her to another team, but she didn't want to because she liked her current team and her current boss. Other than this it would require switching the guy to another team, but then they probably wouldn't force someone to quit their team without first doing an investigation (or letting the police force finish their investigation), which is what they did.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Gatsky 9y ago
So many of these stories start with 'Coworkers went out for a few drinks...' It is clear that there are persons that behave in a predatory manner when a soon-to-be victim becomes drunk, and social norms even legetimize this behaviour in some ways. It doesn't say if the victim here was drunk, but some level of intoxication seems likely given the nature of the crime. This doesn't excuse anything. I wonder how many of these crimes would be prevented if steps were taken to limit excessive drinking. I don't know how this would actually be implemented, or if companies or universities already do have a policy about alcohol and social events.
dogruck 9y ago
Perhaps the female intern should not have had so much to drink. Strange how tolerant we are of abusing alcohol. Imagine if this story was “booted up with the horse, snorted some coke, and did some MDMA.” But, since it’s just booze, well, no big deal at all here. Companies should stop the practice of mixing drinking with work. Perhaps they should even put in policies such as “you are not allowed to drink with your coworkers.”
- malcolmgreaves 9y ago
  Stop blaming the victim for her perpetrator's actions.
  - dogruck 9y ago
    I’m not blaming the alleged victim. I’m blaming the drug (alcohol). I’m also blaming the company (MSFT) for encouraging consumption of that drug. Ask yourself — if a company really cared about preventing sexual assault, why would they continue to encourage drinking with coworkers? What fraction of sexual assault happens while the people are drunk?
    - jchung 9y ago
      "Perhaps the female intern should not have had so much to drink." < This is the exact place where you blamed the victim. Subsequently you also blamed alcohol.
      - dogruck 9y ago
        Blaming a drug addiction is not equal to blaming the drug user. The alleged victim is an unfortunate drug abuser.
rmason 9y ago
I've counseled many younger people, HR is not there to help you - their primary mission is to help the company at all times. The same thing goes with college campus police. She should have called the nearest city's police. If there was proof of a rape from her hospital visit they probably would have charged the guy. On a side note it absolutely flabbergasts me that Microsoft offered a job to the alleged rapist! Surely it can't be that hard for them to find good employees.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  At my last job, the HR rep considered suing the company for discrimination. So HR isn't even there to help HR. Microsoft lost a case a few years ago when a female manager made up allegation to get a male employee fired. One of the employees she tried to convince to lie testified. That case may have influenced their decision to extend an offer. On second thought, more likely that companies just don't care about a single allegation.
- lawnchair_larry 9y ago
  Because he was an alleged rapist, and he denied ger version of the events. You can't just blackball people over a single allegation.
Sora_tetsuya 9y ago
Microsoft have been raping people for years now with windows10... That telemetry, they're all up in your junk like nobodies business xD
cm2187 9y ago
I don't understand what is Microsoft's role here. This is a complaint between employees about a potential crime that happened outside of Microsoft's walls, outside of business hours, and between employees that have no position of hierarchy over one another. This seems to me as a simple police matter. I don't think employers should become an out-of-court justice system as long as they are not involved directly. All they can do is to separate the employees in a way that neither is negatively impacted until the legal proceedings are settled which from what I can tell from the article is what they did. The other thing about tech companies is that it would be interesting to compare their statistics of sexual harassment to other industries. Putting at the front page some stories about sexual harassment don't mean anything. Microsoft has 125,000 employees, google 75,000, apple 125,000, etc. At this scale, and unless they have a special hiring technique that enables to spot criminal behavior that I am not aware of, they are bound to hire some future criminals: rapists, thieves, stalkers, etc. It's just statistically impossible for it not to happen. Is there any evidence that there is more sexual harassment in the tech industry than other industries?
- fullshark 9y ago
  Microsoft’s role is to be name dropped to get clicks
- slang800 9y ago
  Presumably the crime couldn't be proved to the standard that the justice system requires, so getting Microsoft to implement a punishment based on her allegations and public opinion is the next best thing.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    Getting someone punished for unproven allegations based on pressure from people whose only knowledge of the case comes from a news article isn't a good thing.
- FabHK 9y ago
  Similarly, I don't understand why universities get involved in crimes among or involving students. In other countries, crimes are a matter for the police. The university's job is to teach. This whole "in loco parentis" thing is a bit outdated, surely.

108 points by Doches 9y ago

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Most of these articles I have read in the past few years always leave me with the same question. Why is there not more focus on the police investigation. Why did they police decide not to press charges? If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? Aren't the police more accountable to the electorate than Microsoft's internal HR policy. I feel like there are a lot of questions that aren't brought up. Do people believe that the standard of evidence for Police is too high but isn't politically possible to change? If the police standard of evidence is too high, what should the standard of evidence be? What should the standard of evidence be for Microsoft? If someone files a police complain but that complaint is dismissed for lack of evidence, how exactly should Microsoft evaluate that claim? I just feel like many of these articles stop short of discussing obvious questions, and it leaves me suspicious.

wccrawford 9y ago
Many of them focus on accusations and demand justice without actually going through our "justice system". For example, >And despite the allegations against him, Microsoft also hired her accused rapist. I don't expect any company to act on allegations other than to apply some caution, which is probably already being applied anyhow. It's clear that our police don't take rape seriously enough, but that doesn't mean that companies should start being judge, jury and executioner instead.
- aero142 9y ago
  >> I don't expect any company to act on allegations other than to apply some caution, which is probably already being applied anyhow. I don't agree with this. Once an accuser has filed a criminal complaint of rape, I think companies should do a lot to protect that person from a co-worker. However, once those charges are dismissed for lack of evidence, which happened for reasons not covered in this article, the situation changes. I would like someone to tell me what Microsoft should do after charges are dropped.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    Failing to address workplace sexual harassment (or any of the other potential workplace issuesthat arise from failing to act on information relating to this kind of issue between coworkers) merely because a related criminal complaint was dismissed is a good way to get into deep liability, since sexual harassment (and many of the other sources of liability which could become relevant based on a failure to act) don't require the necessary elements of the crime of rape, and as a statutory tort rather than a crime, have a lower standard of proof.
  - throwaway_45 9y ago
    It said they would never be on the same teams etc. so maybe they believed her. However if I was an employer just from liability sense would just just not hire the guy. I am sure they are plenty of other good applicants. If anything does happen that is an easy multi million dollar lawsuit. In all honesty I wouldn't want to hire her either. Just stay away from any possible issues.
    - jsjohnst 9y ago
      > It said they would never be on the same teams Read further, near the end the article states that after a re-org, they ended up on the same team. As far as I’m concerned, that’s very poor form of Microsoft.
- pjc50 9y ago
  > judge, jury and executioner Oh come on. It wasn't even a firing decision, it was a decision on which interns to hire. They can't have been short of applicants. How about not hiring the guy with the rape allegation? Alternatively, if you believe the woman is entirely lying, why wasn't she barred from hiring? No, they just dropped the question on the floor entirely.
  - bufferoverflow 9y ago
    What if I allege you raped me? Should you be unemployed for life now? Due process is important. Raped women should press charges, there should be an investigation, the trial, and prison time.
    - rayiner 9y ago
      Due process is what’s required to take away someone’s liberty, not to deny a job. When my boss asks me “hey, what do you think of Jim?” I can say “we can’t hire him, he was a huge asshole to everyone in school and I think he’s untrustworthy.” I can do that, and we’ll not hire Jim, and I won’t even have to submit a notarized official statement.
      - bufferoverflow 9y ago
        You can say that, but if he finds out, you can get sued for defamation. That's why most companies, when you ask for a reference, will not say anything beyond your dates of employment and maybe the names of the projects you were working on.
        tptacek 9y ago
        In reality, the majority of destructive rumors take the form of "Bob was impossible to work with", not "Bob sexually assaulted Avery". Meanwhile: a bogus accusation of rape is far more actionable than a bogus accusation of being an asshole; if you actually worked with Bob at all, you probably can't be sued for that at all, since things that can be construed as opinions cannot be the basis of a valid defamation claim. Unlike sexual assault, which, as a crime, is probably defamatory per se. So relative to the set of all possible destruct rumors, allegations of sexual assault stand as outliers for how uniquely protected the accused actually are.
DanBC 9y ago
Police and criminal courts use a high burden of proof: "beyond all reasonable doubt". Anyone else doesn't have to use that. If someone who's called a rapist sues for defamation the courts will use "balance of probability". People get confused by the apparent contradiction between "innocent until proved guilty" and the fact that someone not prosecuted (or even prosecuted and found not guilty) may have done the crime. For an example see the comments about football player Ched Evans being found "innocent" - he wasn't, at all. He was found "not guilty" which spans the range from "he definitely didn't do it" right up to "he almost certainly did it, but the prosecution didn't persuade me beyond all reasonable doubt". So if you're Microsoft you can do what you like. If it ends up in court it's probably going to be "balance of probabilities".
- rosser 9y ago
  If I had a very finite number of wishes, I'd probably be strongly inclined to burn one of them on making people somehow meaningfully understand the distinction between "not guilty" and "innocent".
RyJones 9y ago
Prosecutors decide if charges are pressed, not police. Police gather evidence, prosecutors build a case and decide to prosecute. Prosecutors are elected in King County (where both Seattle and Redmond are located). The choice about which crimes to prosecute with what vigor is very much a political question, and I agree with you strongly, we need more discussion about it.
pjc50 9y ago
> If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? This is also a priority as the police are generally bad at this apart from a few places which have made it a priority. There is a national backlog in the US of unprocessed rape evidence kits: http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-rape-kits-legislation-20170525-story.html http://beta.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-rape-kits-legisl... > What should the standard of evidence be for Microsoft? See other comment, but civil standards rather than criminal standards sound like a good place to start. But really consider the normal standards of "evidence" at work; people are fired for all sorts of reasons on the flimsiest of evidence all the time. Remember that Microsoft was a pioneer of "stack ranking" which would sack 10% of employees annually simply for relative performance on the judgement of their manager. > I just feel like many of these articles stop short of discussing obvious questions A separation is usually maintained between "news" and "opinion", but I agree that journalism is often very bad at giving context.
- aero142 9y ago
  I don’t believe that a police determination that this case would not be presecuted is a matter of opinion. The facts of why that decision was made is a very important fact that is relevant for me in how I feel about Microsofts actions.
  - pjc50 9y ago
    > I don’t believe that a police determination that this case would not be presecuted is a matter of opinion I think you might want to research this a bit more; it's often a matter of prejudice.
    - aero142 9y ago
      What I was responding to was a claim that the police investigation was not included in the article because news tries to separate it's news from opinion. If the police did not decide to press charges without any reason, then this can be discussed as part of a news article.
rayiner 9y ago
Rape cases are hard to prove, and prosecutors would rather go for things that are easy to prove, like drugs. But courts and the police aren’t the only aspect of our society charged with ensuring justice. This should be obvious to anyone on HN. Entrepreneurs don’t file a lawsuit every time someone screws them on a business deal. And if someone says “we shouldn’t go into business with that guy—he’s shady,” nobody asks “well if he did what you’re accusing him of doing, why didn’t you file a lawsuit?” Reputation systems are important to fill these gaps. And in a reputation system, where peoples’ freedom isn’t on the line, a different standard of review is appropriate. If someone says “we shouldn’t hire this guy, I know he cheated in his classes.” Nobody says “well can you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt?” That’s not how things work.
- aperrien 9y ago
  The downside of this is that reputation systems can be wrecked with rumor. A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can take the first step. However, I don't know what's going to work to take people with vast amounts of power out of power for wrongdoing, either. What we've done in the past doesn't appear to have consistently worked. So here we are, unfortunately.
  - tptacek 9y ago
    Then turn the question back around on itself. If someone wrecks your professional reputation with a rumor, why don't you sue them? Your burden of proof is far lower in a civil defamation suit than the criminal case being advocated here for rape victims.
    - cperciva 9y ago
      If someone wrecks your professional reputation with a rumor, why don't you sue them? Trivial but serious answer: You might not know. Harvey Weinstein got Ashley Judd and Mira Sorvino blacklisted, and neither of them knew why they suddenly weren't getting roles. It would be nice if we could build a gossip network which was immune to malicious gossip, but I don't know how one would go about doing that.
ZeroGravitas 9y ago
I was just reading a personal account of rape where it was claimed that most of her circle of friends had experienced rape at the hands of police, so possibly that's a good place to start. Also, here's a couple of year old article that takes head on the question of how police deal with rape accusations. I can't recommend it enough, it won a Pulizter: https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an-unbelievable-story https://www.propublica.org/article/false-rape-accusations-an...
DoreenMichele 9y ago
Why is there not more focus on the police investigation. Why did they police decide not to press charges? If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? I'm a woman. I have been raped. I also have two adult sons. So, here are some issues as I see it: First, if you lower the burden of proof for rape because it is rape, then you open the door to men having their lives ruined because some woman wants their job, is mad he won't leave his wife for her, or whatever. Women are human too. We aren't all paragons of virtue simply for having been born with different bits between our legs. So if you set a low standard for convicting a man of rape, you open up a different huge can of worms. Second, human sexual morality is all kinds of messy and complicated. Date rape routinely involves alcohol, yet if you tell women "Play defensively and don't drink and don't get so drunk that you can't drive home and need to crash at some guy's place where he can rape your inebriated, unconscious body," now you are blaming the victim. If we told someone "It's a rough neighborhood, so lock your doors." that would be good advice, not victim blaming. But make it about sex and try to give women practical advice, and suddenly you are impinging on their right to do any damn thing they so please. I mean, I have seen an article where someone was literally quoted as saying "A woman should be able to walk naked down the street and be safe from rape." Is it okay for men to wander the streets naked? Last I checked, the answer was no. Why are we making up this ridiculous scenario? Additionally, because in a court case you can't realistically lower the legal evidentiary bar, going through a court trial after a sexual assault is quite the ordeal. It isn't a sympathetic, hand-holding oh, honey, you poor thing experience. You will essentially be treated like you are lying, because the reality is that you could be. Another thing that is incredibly hard to talk about at all is that we have things like BDSM and cultural standards that men are supposed to initiate, etc. So there is no bright line between a man pursuing a woman and a man harassing a woman or pressuring her into sex, which could then come back to bite him when she decides it constituted rape. I strongly suspect some men genuinely are surprised at being called a rapist after the fact. To their mind, it was consensual. There are no simple, easy, straight forward cures for that last issue. I don't know how we are going to fix it. Perhaps the outpouring of #MeToos and multiple cases currently ongoing against powerful men will change the standard, but not without a lot of blood in the water. I read some of the articles where multiple women have accused a rich, powerful of man of sexual assault and the man often denies it and swears it was consensual. Given my experience of human sexuality, I suspect a lot of these men firmly believe that -- because men are supposed to be the aggressors and rich, powerful men can be oblivious to just how much pressure their wealth and power can represent for a woman they are pursuing. It's complicated and a desire for a nice simple solution in the name of justice tends to just lead to other injustices, not actual solutions.
chickenfries 9y ago
> Why is there not more focus on the police investigation. Why did they police decide not to press charges? So, you might not find it in the same article, but if you want to do the research you can find out the answer to this question. And there are a lot of answers. Here's on aspect: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/16/untested-rape-kits-evidence-across-usa/29902199/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/07/16/untested-rape...
Spooky23 9y ago
Rape is a difficult crime to investigate because by definition it is a he said, she said affair. It’s doubly difficult when the perpetrator is a date or acquaintance. For the victim it’s particularly difficult as she will generally get branded a slut by the defense. On cross examination, the defense attorney can pretty easily rip the victim up. Microsoft’s position is unconscionable in my opinion. This wasn’t a frivolous accusation — the victim made a police report and got a rape kit done. The intern is an at-will hire... he could be fired for any reason or no reason. Microsoft HR would probably had fired him if he stole her purse, but instead forced this woman to work in proximity to her rapist and hires the guy. Give me a break.
- bsder 9y ago
  > Microsoft HR would probably had fired him if he stole her purse, but instead forced this woman to work in proximity to her rapist and hires the guy. Microsoft HR would certainly NOT have done anything if she ACCUSED him of stealing her purse with no other evidence. And, your way of thinking is not good for the victim, either. If I'm Microsoft HR following your advice, I will simply fire BOTH and now I can wash my hands of the problem.
mnm1 9y ago
Why would police try to solve rape and murder cases when arresting people for drug possession/loitering/panhandling is easier, simpler, and guaranteed? I wish I could add a /sarcasm tag to this, but it is not sarcasm. When normal everyday activities are criminalized and the police is incentivized simply by the number of arrests they make, why wouldn't they go for the low hanging fruit? It's not like police have ethics or honor to guide them. They are a brute force machine of state violence without morals or ethics. Expecting anything but the bare minimum from police is delusional. Hell, most of the time, expecting the bare minimum is delusional. If expecting police not to murder innocent civilians is clearly too high of an expectation--it is in the US--expecting them to solve rape and murder cases is a stratospheric, ridiculous expectation. Not to mention that many citizens are simply terrified of police. How are we, citizens, supposed to keep these thugs in check when they can legally murder us for no reason without any recourse whatsoever? Sure, if it came up on a ballot, I'd vote for reform because a ballot is secret. Expecting people to stand up to police and voice their concerns in public, putting their own lives and the lives of their family in danger in a futile attempt at police reform, is simply too much to ask of ordinary citizens. Also, most of the people that don't fear police aren't even aware of the problems with police. In this way, nothing gets done.
Lazare 9y ago
> If our police forces are failing to press charges against rapists, shouldn't that be a big priority to change? The stereotypical case of rape would involve two people who know each other, may have had a prior intimate relationship, and then did something behind closed doors with no witnesses. One person will claim it was consensual sex or, failing that, that they had a reasonable yet mistaken belief that it was consensual sex. The other person will claim it was non-consensual sex, and that the first person did not have a reasonable believe that consent was present. What are the police meant to do with that? Both parties agree that they were together, in the room, behind closed doors, and had sex; the disagreement hinges over extremely specific details about what was said and how it was interpreted. Classic police tools (checking alibis, interviewing witnesses, pulling security camera footage to track someone's movements, speculating about motives, following money, running DNA tests, checking forensics) are all totally useless here. It's possible the justice system is failing to bring charges in cases where there is a strong chance of proving a crime occurred beyond reasonable doubt, but the nature of rape makes most cases extremely hard to prove, as the linked example makes clear. Here: "The [woman's] colleagues took her out for drinks [...] after a night of drinking, she crashed with a male intern and his friend who lived in a group house nearby. She fell asleep in the basement [...] but during the night [...] the male intern [...] “forcibly penetrated her while she was sleeping”." That's her story and I have no reason to think it's false. But here's the thing: All the guy has to do is say is something like "oh, I went down to check on her, she was awake, we chatted a bit, she seemed sober, we flirted, I propositioned her, she said sure, we had sex, I gave her a kiss, and left her to sleep" (or some variation of that; basically anything that expresses a reason why a reasonable person in his shoes would have believed she was consenting). And here's the thing: His story doesn't need to be true; it just need to be possibly true, because a conviction would require proving it was untrue beyond reasonable doubt. As long as the male intern says something that implies he had a reasonable belief in consent, and there's no third party witnesses willing to testify to undermine his claims, the justice system is powerless. And rightly so. (If he was dumb enough to claim they hadn't had sex at all, and the rape kit proved otherwise, then he'd be in trouble, of course. The rape cases that the justice system can deal with are the ones that hinge on whether or not someone was in the room, or whether or not intercourse took place. Ie, the rare easy ones.) > Do people believe that the standard of evidence for Police is too high but isn't politically possible to change? Not at all. It's good that the justice system works by requiring crimes to be proven to a jury of one's peers beyond reasonable doubt, and that shouldn't change. > If someone files a police complain but that complaint is dismissed for lack of evidence, how exactly should Microsoft evaluate that claim? Microsoft should evaluate the claim at face value. What the police do is entirely separate. If one intern is convicted (and only then) Microsoft can decide if they want to hire a rapist. Until then, they can look at the fact that two of their interns have had an extremely unpleasant encounter. Deciding to hire both, and then assigning them to the same team is clearly the wrong solution, whatever did (or didn't) happen that night.

g09980 9y ago

(Deleted)

froindt 9y ago
When you stop it there it's awkward. >, the male intern sexually assaulted her When you finish the thought from the author, it's less clunky. Its saying "her lawyer wrote that during the night the male intern sexually assaulted her".

jxi 9y ago

Why would she go back to Microsoft if her rapist was hired back as well?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

spraak 9y ago

> In the meantime, she was required to keep working alongside the man. When she discussed getting a restraining order with Microsoft, HR told her if she wanted one, she’d need to change teams, her lawyer wrote. She liked the work and her boss, so she stayed put for the rest of the summer. It really sounds crazy, but I can understand it. I was sexually assaulted by my boss (and I am a male and so was my boss) and couldn't understand my wife's anger when I said I'd still be working for him. Luckily I came to understand how poor a decision that would have been and I quit.

org3432 9y ago
That is really astonishing.
EpicBlackCrayon 9y ago
That part of the article fucking boggles my mind.
- Steeeve 9y ago
  That is bizarre. An HR rep's job is to minimize the company's liabilities, not expand them. I understand not shifting employee job functions based on an unproven accusation. If there's a restraining order in place, it's not her problem. It's his. He's restrained. He has to go to his HR rep and say "I can't legally work next to this person, what happens?" That's only one side of the story, though.
  - shmed 9y ago
    The article clearly says that HR offered to switch her to another team, but she didn't want to because she liked her current team and her current boss. Other than this it would require switching the guy to another team, but then they probably wouldn't force someone to quit their team without first doing an investigation (or letting the police force finish their investigation), which is what they did.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Gatsky 9y ago

So many of these stories start with 'Coworkers went out for a few drinks...' It is clear that there are persons that behave in a predatory manner when a soon-to-be victim becomes drunk, and social norms even legetimize this behaviour in some ways. It doesn't say if the victim here was drunk, but some level of intoxication seems likely given the nature of the crime. This doesn't excuse anything. I wonder how many of these crimes would be prevented if steps were taken to limit excessive drinking. I don't know how this would actually be implemented, or if companies or universities already do have a policy about alcohol and social events.

dogruck 9y ago

Perhaps the female intern should not have had so much to drink. Strange how tolerant we are of abusing alcohol. Imagine if this story was “booted up with the horse, snorted some coke, and did some MDMA.” But, since it’s just booze, well, no big deal at all here. Companies should stop the practice of mixing drinking with work. Perhaps they should even put in policies such as “you are not allowed to drink with your coworkers.”

malcolmgreaves 9y ago
Stop blaming the victim for her perpetrator's actions.
- dogruck 9y ago
  I’m not blaming the alleged victim. I’m blaming the drug (alcohol). I’m also blaming the company (MSFT) for encouraging consumption of that drug. Ask yourself — if a company really cared about preventing sexual assault, why would they continue to encourage drinking with coworkers? What fraction of sexual assault happens while the people are drunk?
  - jchung 9y ago
    "Perhaps the female intern should not have had so much to drink." < This is the exact place where you blamed the victim. Subsequently you also blamed alcohol.
    - dogruck 9y ago
      Blaming a drug addiction is not equal to blaming the drug user. The alleged victim is an unfortunate drug abuser.

rmason 9y ago

I've counseled many younger people, HR is not there to help you - their primary mission is to help the company at all times. The same thing goes with college campus police. She should have called the nearest city's police. If there was proof of a rape from her hospital visit they probably would have charged the guy. On a side note it absolutely flabbergasts me that Microsoft offered a job to the alleged rapist! Surely it can't be that hard for them to find good employees.

kelukelugames 9y ago
At my last job, the HR rep considered suing the company for discrimination. So HR isn't even there to help HR. Microsoft lost a case a few years ago when a female manager made up allegation to get a male employee fired. One of the employees she tried to convince to lie testified. That case may have influenced their decision to extend an offer. On second thought, more likely that companies just don't care about a single allegation.
lawnchair_larry 9y ago
Because he was an alleged rapist, and he denied ger version of the events. You can't just blackball people over a single allegation.

Sora_tetsuya 9y ago

Microsoft have been raping people for years now with windows10... That telemetry, they're all up in your junk like nobodies business xD

cm2187 9y ago

I don't understand what is Microsoft's role here. This is a complaint between employees about a potential crime that happened outside of Microsoft's walls, outside of business hours, and between employees that have no position of hierarchy over one another. This seems to me as a simple police matter. I don't think employers should become an out-of-court justice system as long as they are not involved directly. All they can do is to separate the employees in a way that neither is negatively impacted until the legal proceedings are settled which from what I can tell from the article is what they did. The other thing about tech companies is that it would be interesting to compare their statistics of sexual harassment to other industries. Putting at the front page some stories about sexual harassment don't mean anything. Microsoft has 125,000 employees, google 75,000, apple 125,000, etc. At this scale, and unless they have a special hiring technique that enables to spot criminal behavior that I am not aware of, they are bound to hire some future criminals: rapists, thieves, stalkers, etc. It's just statistically impossible for it not to happen. Is there any evidence that there is more sexual harassment in the tech industry than other industries?

fullshark 9y ago
Microsoft’s role is to be name dropped to get clicks
slang800 9y ago
Presumably the crime couldn't be proved to the standard that the justice system requires, so getting Microsoft to implement a punishment based on her allegations and public opinion is the next best thing.
- leereeves 9y ago
  Getting someone punished for unproven allegations based on pressure from people whose only knowledge of the case comes from a news article isn't a good thing.
FabHK 9y ago
Similarly, I don't understand why universities get involved in crimes among or involving students. In other countries, crimes are a matter for the police. The university's job is to teach. This whole "in loco parentis" thing is a bit outdated, surely.