4 ms·

US Labor Board Files a Complaint Against Mozilla for Refusing to Hire Apple

alphaomegacode 3y ago
Wait. So, she had "the impression" that she was the company's first choice for the job? And as the interviews went on, they decided to not hire her and she's suing? It must be amazing to realize oneself as so fabulous a colleague and fit and perfect at all skills that a company is obliged to hire someone.
camilamacedo 3y ago
[dead]
Eleanorh12 3y ago
[dead]
ksherlock 3y ago
Unfortunate title truncation.... US Labor Board Files a Complaint Against Mozilla for Refusing to Hire Apple Activist https://archive.is/wAt0i https://archive.is/wAt0i
- beardyw 3y ago
  Yes - wondered if Apple needed a job?
pinewurst 3y ago
“…she had an interview at Mozilla Corp. in 2021, which left her with the impression that she was the company’s first choice for a job.” I’d be richer than Bezos if I could successfully sue all my interviewers who gave this impression.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  That's not the basis of the suit, though, just a fact about the context.
bilekas 3y ago
This is a strange one.. I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here, regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions for example, I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals. I don't know how the labor board plans to prove this one.. I suppose it will be interesting to see what comes out of the subpoenas though, always amazes me how blatant people can be on electronic recorded communications.
- DistractionRect 3y ago
  Unless they out and out gave that as the reason they didn't hire her, it's unlikely they'll be able to prove it. They're basically hoping this doesn't get tossed out the door and they'll get lucky with discovery. I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, as I don't see why they would pick this battle otherwise. On a broader note, it seems pretty plain that any outcome here won't be desirable. If the claim is provably true, and they are forced to hire her, they'll find a way to remove her like Apple did. Likely through bad performance reviews and a PIP. In any case, coming across as a sue happy crusader is a good way to get future applications elsewhere sorted right to the trash. Edit: clarity
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, The NLRB complaint was filed in February, 2022. The NLRB completed its investigation and decided to file charges in November, 2023. Presumably, Mozilla had an opportunity to show this "misrepresentation" to the NLRB during the intervening 21 months. [0] While there is no complainant name, this seems to be the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here Well, yeah, AFAICT no one has bothered to do an FOIA request and get even the publicly-disclosable part of the complaint and publish it, so no one really knows anything. > regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions Since there are specific legal protections for that, if they do what is proven (to the civil preponderance of the evidence standard) to be discriminating against people with an organizing background, they absolutely are legally at fault. > I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals. If the "morals" in question are about things which are activities legally protected from hiring discrimination, they absolutely can be. This isn't even a little bit unclear,
Always_Anon 3y ago
[flagged]
- edward28 3y ago
  [flagged]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
CogitoCogito 3y ago
Did I miss something in the article? Is there any evidence that the reason Mozilla didn’t hire her was due to her agitation at Apple? Or is it just assumed?
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  The lawsuit from her alleges she was not hired solely because of her activism, even though she was quite convinced that she would get the Mozilla job. So from what I can see so far, there is no evidence beyond "I don't get a job I thought I should."
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > The lawsuit from her alleges she was not hired solely because of her activism She didn't file a lawsuit. She filed a charge with the NLRB, the NLRB investigated for nearly for 21 months and has initiated a formal case (internal to the NLRB, not a lawsuit) against Mozilla. > So from what I can see so far, there is no evidence beyond "I don't get a job I thought I should." There is almost certainly evidence cited in the NLRB complaint, but that complaint is non-public and subject to redactions before being released under the FOIA, and AFAICT no one has FOIA'd and published even the redacted version. But "I don't have access to the document where any evidence would be discussed" may technically make "from what I can see, there is no evidence" correct, the "from what I can see" is doing a lot of work.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      That's definitely a lot of distinctions I missed, thank you. To clarify, Mozilla has been under investigation for 21 years? Or was that a typo, I thought her complaint was more recent.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        21 months. I probably started with "almost two years", and incompletely changed it. Corrected.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Scarlett's Wikipedia describes her first as a workers' rights activist and second as a developer [1]. To the first, I see a long history of complaining with little other than personal publicity to show for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Scarlett
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  She's organized some stuff in general, and I don't know the specific details of each individual claim, but she doesn't seem to ever stop stirring the pot. I don't think "known pot stirrer" is a protected class so if she's being denied employment because of her past actions...well, people don't HAVE to hire people they don't want to most of the time.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  She was hired as a principal software engineer on Apple's software security team well into her activist campaigns. Seems absurd to say she doesn't have significant technical skill.
local_crmdgeon 3y ago
She’ll win, watch. Meanwhile that exact company fired their CEO for donating to a political campaign that won
nitwit005 3y ago
Also Epic Games apparently: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/04/28/epic-games-nlrb/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/04/28/epic-g... Labor activist knows how to file labor related complaints.

Wait. So, she had "the impression" that she was the company's first choice for the job? And as the interviews went on, they decided to not hire her and she's suing? It must be amazing to realize oneself as so fabulous a colleague and fit and perfect at all skills that a company is obliged to hire someone.

camilamacedo 3y ago

[dead]

Eleanorh12 3y ago

[dead]

ksherlock 3y ago

Unfortunate title truncation.... US Labor Board Files a Complaint Against Mozilla for Refusing to Hire Apple Activist https://archive.is/wAt0i https://archive.is/wAt0i

beardyw 3y ago
Yes - wondered if Apple needed a job?

pinewurst 3y ago

“…she had an interview at Mozilla Corp. in 2021, which left her with the impression that she was the company’s first choice for a job.” I’d be richer than Bezos if I could successfully sue all my interviewers who gave this impression.

dragonwriter 3y ago
That's not the basis of the suit, though, just a fact about the context.

bilekas 3y ago

This is a strange one.. I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here, regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions for example, I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals. I don't know how the labor board plans to prove this one.. I suppose it will be interesting to see what comes out of the subpoenas though, always amazes me how blatant people can be on electronic recorded communications.

DistractionRect 3y ago
Unless they out and out gave that as the reason they didn't hire her, it's unlikely they'll be able to prove it. They're basically hoping this doesn't get tossed out the door and they'll get lucky with discovery. I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, as I don't see why they would pick this battle otherwise. On a broader note, it seems pretty plain that any outcome here won't be desirable. If the claim is provably true, and they are forced to hire her, they'll find a way to remove her like Apple did. Likely through bad performance reviews and a PIP. In any case, coming across as a sue happy crusader is a good way to get future applications elsewhere sorted right to the trash. Edit: clarity
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I wouldn't be surprised if she has misrepresented the case to the NLRB in order to get them to run with it, The NLRB complaint was filed in February, 2022. The NLRB completed its investigation and decided to file charges in November, 2023. Presumably, Mozilla had an opportunity to show this "misrepresentation" to the NLRB during the intervening 21 months. [0] While there is no complainant name, this seems to be the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I honestly don't see how Mozilla are at fault here Well, yeah, AFAICT no one has bothered to do an FOIA request and get even the publicly-disclosable part of the complaint and publish it, so no one really knows anything. > regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions Since there are specific legal protections for that, if they do what is proven (to the civil preponderance of the evidence standard) to be discriminating against people with an organizing background, they absolutely are legally at fault. > I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals. If the "morals" in question are about things which are activities legally protected from hiring discrimination, they absolutely can be. This isn't even a little bit unclear,

Always_Anon 3y ago

[flagged]

edward28 3y ago
[flagged]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

CogitoCogito 3y ago

Did I miss something in the article? Is there any evidence that the reason Mozilla didn’t hire her was due to her agitation at Apple? Or is it just assumed?

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
The lawsuit from her alleges she was not hired solely because of her activism, even though she was quite convinced that she would get the Mozilla job. So from what I can see so far, there is no evidence beyond "I don't get a job I thought I should."
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > The lawsuit from her alleges she was not hired solely because of her activism She didn't file a lawsuit. She filed a charge with the NLRB, the NLRB investigated for nearly for 21 months and has initiated a formal case (internal to the NLRB, not a lawsuit) against Mozilla. > So from what I can see so far, there is no evidence beyond "I don't get a job I thought I should." There is almost certainly evidence cited in the NLRB complaint, but that complaint is non-public and subject to redactions before being released under the FOIA, and AFAICT no one has FOIA'd and published even the redacted version. But "I don't have access to the document where any evidence would be discussed" may technically make "from what I can see, there is no evidence" correct, the "from what I can see" is doing a lot of work.
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    That's definitely a lot of distinctions I missed, thank you. To clarify, Mozilla has been under investigation for 21 years? Or was that a typo, I thought her complaint was more recent.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      21 months. I probably started with "almost two years", and incompletely changed it. Corrected.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

Scarlett's Wikipedia describes her first as a workers' rights activist and second as a developer [1]. To the first, I see a long history of complaining with little other than personal publicity to show for it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Scarlett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cher_Scarlett

I_Am_Nous 3y ago
She's organized some stuff in general, and I don't know the specific details of each individual claim, but she doesn't seem to ever stop stirring the pot. I don't think "known pot stirrer" is a protected class so if she's being denied employment because of her past actions...well, people don't HAVE to hire people they don't want to most of the time.
iudqnolq 3y ago
She was hired as a principal software engineer on Apple's software security team well into her activist campaigns. Seems absurd to say she doesn't have significant technical skill.

local_crmdgeon 3y ago

She’ll win, watch. Meanwhile that exact company fired their CEO for donating to a political campaign that won

nitwit005 3y ago

Also Epic Games apparently: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/04/28/epic-games-nlrb/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2022/04/28/epic-g... Labor activist knows how to file labor related complaints.