4 ms·
Conflicts of interest sure if they were clear and proven. The rest sounds like there’s not much to work with. The only actual action is firing an at will emplo
by CPLX 3y ago
Conflicts of interest sure if they were clear and proven. The rest sounds like there’s not much to work with.
The only actual action is firing an at will employee. The various supposed consequences are sort of second order effects that could easily be ascribed to the action of others and most of them haven’t actually happened as of now.
There’s a LOT of people in the world that have absolutely no interest in a court precedent that a board can’t just fire a CEO if they want to. This is basically a textbook application of the business judgement rule, and it’s even more clear cut since it’s a non profit and the board gets to decide how they want to interpret the mission.
- jacquesm 3y agoI would rather not be on the receiving end of a lawsuit for any of those. Besides the possible reputation damage there is the real danger of personal liability.
- CPLX 3y agoNot really. People can sue anyone for anything and do all the time. Being sued by powerful people is worse than being sued by random people. These are truisms and meaningless observations. There's not really much of a case for the premise that you can sue the board of a charity for a hiring/firing decision. What's the rationale? There isn't one. And the law professor quoted in the article basically said yeah I can't really think of one. And you haven't stated one here. Look at this in the reverse. If the board of Microsoft fired Satya tomorrow suddenly would OpenAI have cause of action for a lawsuit against them? Of course not, what would even be the premise for that? It's literally the same fact pattern though.