3 ms·

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 w

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

> 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...