3 ms·
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 tosse
by 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