4 ms·

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.
      - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
        No worries! From what I saw on the Labor Board site for the case their FOIA request system is being upgraded so no one can request more details at the moment.
        dragonwriter 3y ago
        You can't get the FOIA information that would be normally be presented on the site currently, you can, however, file an FOIA request with the agency. This just means that information previously redacted and released via an FOIA request is not also available on the case webpage during the transition. See: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/freedom-of-information-act-foia https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/freedom-of-information-act-foi...
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Is there any evidence that the reason Mozilla didn’t hire her was due to her agitation at Apple? The NLRB investigation before filing the case was 21 months from the complaint, presumably they found some evidence that made them decide to move forward in that time. The complaint is not publicly available and is flagged as potentially requiring redactions before being released under the FOIA, but you are free to request it if you are concerned with getting an idea (potentially incomplete, though) of what the government's basis for moving forward is.
- CogitoCogito 3y ago
  I see that makes sense. I do trust this isn’t being done without evidence I just didn’t understand why the evidence wasn’t being discussed. Thanks for the clarification this explains things.

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.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
      No worries! From what I saw on the Labor Board site for the case their FOIA request system is being upgraded so no one can request more details at the moment.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        You can't get the FOIA information that would be normally be presented on the site currently, you can, however, file an FOIA request with the agency. This just means that information previously redacted and released via an FOIA request is not also available on the case webpage during the transition. See: https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/freedom-of-information-act-foia https://www.nlrb.gov/guidance/freedom-of-information-act-foi...

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Is there any evidence that the reason Mozilla didn’t hire her was due to her agitation at Apple? The NLRB investigation before filing the case was 21 months from the complaint, presumably they found some evidence that made them decide to move forward in that time. The complaint is not publicly available and is flagged as potentially requiring redactions before being released under the FOIA, but you are free to request it if you are concerned with getting an idea (potentially incomplete, though) of what the government's basis for moving forward is.

CogitoCogito 3y ago
I see that makes sense. I do trust this isn’t being done without evidence I just didn’t understand why the evidence wasn’t being discussed. Thanks for the clarification this explains things.