5 ms·
Andreessen Horowitz sued for discrimination after startup collapse
- Canada 3y agoThis is why shares need to vest, always, even for founders.
- echelon 3y agoThis is an extreme case of dead equity, allegedly caused by forcing one of the founders out due to their pregnancy. Requiring a vesting schedule wouldn't fix this. It's orthogonal.
- chmod600 3y agoAren't the shares worthless anyway? The company is bust, right?
- orbz 3y agoGiven that the other founder was planning to take the remaining money to pivot into something new means that there would possibly still be a claim of that new venture with those shares.
- v3ss0n 3y agothis won't go well for the accuser
- msy 3y agoWording and structure of this article is a bizarre mess, I’m guessing it’s the result of some kind of LLM expansion/template application from some bullet points?
- hashtag-til 3y agoTrue. The style is very unusual and hard to follow, such as the complete mess of desperate startup founders these days.
- irjustin 3y agoWhy did the company, RTW, sue Jiang in the first place? Even if there was the "internal damage etc" as alleged, it was already well known that there wasn't any value in the company. So the value of that damage is pretty minimal. What were they hoping to gain?
- moomin 3y agoI have no information on this case. My impression, however, is that things like this happen all the time, they just rarely get to court. I know people who’ve experienced pregnancy discrimination, but the kinds of firm I work for have enough OpSec that leaver sabotage isn’t a thing. If the claims of the second case were true, the bringers of the first case were muppets to do so. Moreover, even if the second case hadn’t been filed, the first case is pretty embarrassing for the claimants.
- jiofj 3y ago[flagged]
- daniel_iversen 3y agoNot sure about the US(?), but in Australia in many cases it would likely be unlawful to discriminate due to pregnancy even if it "impacted her job availability".
- Y-bar 3y agoSame here where I live in EU. An employer cannot discriminate because of a pregnancy. An employer who wishes to sack you because of an illness _must_ first show that they have offered rehabilitating services (e.g. medical physiological professional aid, including alterations to the work place) or offered role changes within the company which have not been able to help.
- orbz 3y agoAre there any stipulations on company size? If it’s just a 2-3 person startup, losing one person’s availability is really hard to handle.
- Y-bar 3y agoNot really, why should it be? The government pays for the sick leave after a certain time and the company, small or large, is free to hire temps/substitutes to fill in the gap.
- orbz 3y agoAmazing, I wish I had a government that helped like that.
- Y-bar 3y agoDon’t worry, our government is in the process of eliminating many of those safety nets and social programmes “to incentivise employment”. I have made more than median income for a while, and high income earners like me just got a tax break to “incentivise” is to get and keep a job.
- andy_ppp 3y agoI’m guessing most people here don’t have enough information to be able to comment sensibly on an ongoing legal case either way. I think I’ll flag the article as I can’t see informed insightful debate being possible IMO.