3 ms·

Move the boss to another job, not the junior. At my firm, the partner is forced out if they are caught banging juniors or staff. In this case, moving the clai

Move the boss to another job, not the junior. At my firm, the partner is forced out if they are caught banging juniors or staff. In this case, moving the claimant to another position is text book retaliation because of the power mismatch.

luckylion 7y ago
> In this case, moving the claimant to another position is text book retaliation because of the power mismatch. But the move happened before the break-up, so there really wasn't anything to retaliate for (other than "don't date within the company", which apparently isn't actually a problem at Google if what she writes is accurate). It's a very different story if the company got involved in the custody battle and took the exec's side, but I understand that's not what happened - when she was moved they were still on good terms. She quit shortly thereafter (because of the move), while still being on good terms with him.
- blub 7y ago
  You misunderstood: the manager should be moved as punishment for them being stupid and screwing a subordinate. And yes, the move happens ASAP.
  - rdtwo 7y ago
    There is no legal reason that has to happen, in fact the subordinate can get moved to night shift for example and it’s still not considered retaliation.
    - pnw_hazor 7y ago
      It opens you up for a trial. claimant - I told Mr Big at home that he should divorce his wife so he can help me with this incoming baby...then BOOM I am on the night shift.... => probably gets over summary judgment motion.
      - rdtwo 7y ago
        You would think but that does not appear to be the standard. The company merely has make an attempt to separate the two parties and it doesn’t have to be super equitable. Plenty of cases where the victim ends up being punished and the company does not have to pay
  - repolfx 7y ago
    Why should it be the manager who gets moved and not the subordinate? The manager is almost by definition more important to the company, and it's a consensual relationship that both agreed to and both knew the rules. Blakeley is claiming her career was damaged here, but what does she think should have happened? That Drummond's career was damaged instead? If you accept the principle people shouldn't report directly to their love partners, one of them has to change job and it's entirely reasonable to assume that the one lower on the rungs has less impact from moving (on everyone else). The alternative is to fire both if they have a relationship even if there's nothing wrong with their work or the relationship itself, which would be extreme and cruel. This looks a lot like a repeat of the Rubin affair. Colleagues in a happy relationship. Relationship goes wrong, woman tries to drag Google corporate into it, presumably to gain some sort of advantage. It's not really any of their business.
    - blub 7y ago
      The supervisor has more power and in many companies such relationships are frowned upon, because they open the company to lawsuits. If the supervisor is foolish enough to nevertheless enter such a relationship, they should bear the brunt of the consequences. Unless they're covered by HR... then the underling gets burned.
      - repolfx 7y ago
        But resolving that problem is exactly why the policy is someone has to move. You seem to be arguing that such relationships should never even start at all, that if it starts wrong it can never be fixed, which seems way over the top.

luckylion 7y ago

> In this case, moving the claimant to another position is text book retaliation because of the power mismatch. But the move happened before the break-up, so there really wasn't anything to retaliate for (other than "don't date within the company", which apparently isn't actually a problem at Google if what she writes is accurate). It's a very different story if the company got involved in the custody battle and took the exec's side, but I understand that's not what happened - when she was moved they were still on good terms. She quit shortly thereafter (because of the move), while still being on good terms with him.

blub 7y ago
You misunderstood: the manager should be moved as punishment for them being stupid and screwing a subordinate. And yes, the move happens ASAP.
- rdtwo 7y ago
  There is no legal reason that has to happen, in fact the subordinate can get moved to night shift for example and it’s still not considered retaliation.
  - pnw_hazor 7y ago
    It opens you up for a trial. claimant - I told Mr Big at home that he should divorce his wife so he can help me with this incoming baby...then BOOM I am on the night shift.... => probably gets over summary judgment motion.
    - rdtwo 7y ago
      You would think but that does not appear to be the standard. The company merely has make an attempt to separate the two parties and it doesn’t have to be super equitable. Plenty of cases where the victim ends up being punished and the company does not have to pay
- repolfx 7y ago
  Why should it be the manager who gets moved and not the subordinate? The manager is almost by definition more important to the company, and it's a consensual relationship that both agreed to and both knew the rules. Blakeley is claiming her career was damaged here, but what does she think should have happened? That Drummond's career was damaged instead? If you accept the principle people shouldn't report directly to their love partners, one of them has to change job and it's entirely reasonable to assume that the one lower on the rungs has less impact from moving (on everyone else). The alternative is to fire both if they have a relationship even if there's nothing wrong with their work or the relationship itself, which would be extreme and cruel. This looks a lot like a repeat of the Rubin affair. Colleagues in a happy relationship. Relationship goes wrong, woman tries to drag Google corporate into it, presumably to gain some sort of advantage. It's not really any of their business.
  - blub 7y ago
    The supervisor has more power and in many companies such relationships are frowned upon, because they open the company to lawsuits. If the supervisor is foolish enough to nevertheless enter such a relationship, they should bear the brunt of the consequences. Unless they're covered by HR... then the underling gets burned.
    - repolfx 7y ago
      But resolving that problem is exactly why the policy is someone has to move. You seem to be arguing that such relationships should never even start at all, that if it starts wrong it can never be fixed, which seems way over the top.