7 ms·

Before we all jump on the "he-said-she-said" bandwagon, keep in mind that IAC (Tinder's parent company) has confirmed that Mr. Mateen did send harassing message

by dbloom 12y ago

Before we all jump on the "he-said-she-said" bandwagon, keep in mind that IAC (Tinder's parent company) has confirmed that Mr. Mateen did send harassing messages to Ms. Wolfe: "Through that process, it has become clear that Mr. Mateen sent private messages to Ms. Wolfe containing inappropriate content." <http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/06/30/tinder-sexual-harassment/11812153/> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/06/30/tinder-sexual-... The rest of the allegations are unproven, but the allegation that Mr. Mateen harassed Ms. Wolfe is, for all intents and purposes, 100% factual. There's no reason to defend this guy.

j4kp07 12y ago
Key word: Private. Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating.
- aikah 12y ago
  IANAL but AFAIK if I send a mail to you it's not private and can totally be accepted as evidence in a court of law.There is no notion of privacy in sending a mail,a text message,... the only thing that would not be admissible is if I recorded a conversation between us without telling you you are on record.
  - tbrownaw 12y ago
    the only thing that would not be admissible is if I recorded a conversation between us without telling you you are on record. Doesn't that vary by state? IIRC in some you can record anything you're involved in while in others everyone involved has to agree (or at least know?). Or maybe this was about getting sued under privacy laws rather than admissibility...
- dbloom 12y ago
  > Key word: Private. This is a ballpark guess, but probably about 99% of workplace harassment is done privately. > Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating. If a manager has a relationship with a subordinate, the manager should be held accountable for that, not the subordinate.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    If a manager has a relationship with a subordinate, the manager should be held accountable for that, not the subordinate. That's a great rule for the company, and it would be awesome if it existed at more places.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - dbloom 12y ago
      Directly from the complaint: "Justin Mateen joined Tinder as Chief Marketing Officer, a position that made him Ms. Wolfe’s direct supervisor. Within two months after he became an employee, in November 2012, Mr. Mateen began pursuing a romantic relationship with Ms. Wolfe." http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Exhibits-1.pdf http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex... (page 5, paragraph 19)
- tootie 12y ago
  I think the accusation is that she was mistreated at work because of this.
- alttab 12y ago
  I say shame on them both for getting romantically involved as co-founders. IAC probably didn't know or know the extent.
  - danielweber 12y ago
    Ignoring the romantic relationship, check pages 6 and 7 for how multiple officers didn't want a "girl" to be seen as a co-founder. It's not as salacious but the allegations, if true, move things out of the "one rogue manager" territory.
    - alttab 12y ago
      The entire complaint is rather damning. This is something I would expect from the Snapchat guys, but wow.
      - toomuchtodo 12y ago
        > This is something I would expect from the Snapchat guys, but wow. And Tinder is any different.....how?
        alttab 12y ago
        AFAIK, the Tinder guys were not the ones with a leaked Fraternity leadership e-mail that clearly exposed them as misogynistic douches with little sensitivity outside their bro-ubble. That said, Tinder and Snapchat are two peas in a pod, eh?
- DanBC 12y ago
  It seems she was willing to talk to him about work and had asked him to concentrate on work stuff. It seems he declined to do so. It also seems that some of his comments were made from work accounts, to work accounts, on work hardware, or face to face on work premises.
walshemj 12y ago
I hate to be that guy but if you suspend some one to investigate serious allegation you don't blurt out "he did it" before the investigation is complete and you have disciplined the employee. to misquote alice and wonderland "Trial first then the sentence"
- danielweber 12y ago
  The standard procedure in any harassment case is this bulleted list: * Put the worker on leave and conduct investigation.
  - walshemj 12y ago
    Thank you the point which all the down votes on my comment seemed to have missed! no wonder sv and start ups seem to have HR disasters every other day - they seem to lack even basic understanding of employment law and best practice.
- dbloom 12y ago
  So you're saying that Ms. Wolfe can accuse him of sending harassing messages, but IAC can't? Even if IAC has irrefutable evidence that it happened?
  - discardorama 12y ago
    Does the "it became clear" in IAC's statement mean nothing to you?
    - dbloom 12y ago
      It means that they have irrefutable evidence, as I said before. What does it mean to you?
  - walshemj 12y ago
    IAC can what it likes but disclosing this while its own investigation is still in progress could lead to him getting a better result than he deserves ie he might say my employer did not follow the rules so I am claiming unfair dismissal and win compensation. Incompetence or deliberate mistake?
cjslep 12y ago
I agree with you. What I really dislike though is how this kind of hate begets more hate. I was surprised to see so many downvoted-into-oblivion comments so soon after submission. There's already foul name calling, and hints of intolerance. So on top of "there's no reason to defend this guy", I don't think it is constructive to attack each other here in such negative ways. Edit for clarification: Now that there are 80+ more comments it seems more constructive. There were quite a few in the first ~20 that were pretty sour.
- dbloom 12y ago
  The reason that I downvote most (not all!) of those comments is: 1. They emphasize a culture of doubt about these accusations, which may discourage people in a situation like Ms. Wolfe's from stepping forward. On the other hand, the accused people in power really don't need our help to defend themselves. 2. They're formulaic, repetitive, and uninteresting. Most could probably have been written by a misandry chatbot. They don't bring any new ideas to the table. And while I try hard to be diplomatic when I write critical replies to those comments...I can empathize with those who are a little harsher.
  - tomp 12y ago
    I don't know about the US, but in the UK the situation regarding (1) is the reverse. In the recent scandal, the (student) president of Oxford Union was publicly accused and arrested because of rape allegations. He was subsequently found innocent and one of the victims apparently made up the whole story, but in the meantime a lot of influential people have cancelled their talks at the Union and his name is smeared for life, while there have been no negative consequences (yet) for the lying accuser - she can't even be named publicly! Apparently, this has spurned a conversation in the UK media whether the names of people accused of sex crimes should be kept confidential until they are found guilty, in order to avoid ruining innocent people's lives.
    - dbloom 12y ago
      I agree on the point that allegations aren't true 100% of the time. And it is tragic when someone's reputation is irreparably tarnished as a result of a false accusation. But it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of rape accusations are true[1], and this likely carries over to accusations of sexual and gender-based harassment as well. Statistically, it makes sense to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather unfairly tarnish the reputation of a small minority of the accused, than attack the reputation of the accusers (the vast majority of whom truly are victims of a terrible, heinous crime). This doesn't mean that the accused shouldn't get a fair legal trial. But I think it does affect how they should be treated by the court of public opinion (until they are exonerated, in the rare cases where that actually happens). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estimates_of_prevalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estima...
tptacek 12y ago
You can read the actual complaint here: http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Exhibits-1.pdf http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex... It's bad.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 12y ago
  The allegations, if true, are bad. > Mr. Mateen went on to say that he didn’t want boys trying to date Ms. Wolfe due to her co-founder status, and that being a female co-founder of Tinder was 'slutty' because it is an app people use 'to hook up.' On a tangential note: it's interesting to see the very weak bargaining on her part on pages 64-65, where she's trying to talk to Sean Rad about her equity. Textbook wrong way to approach it for both parties. He should've been soft, to encourage her not to sue, and she should've been the one with a hard edge, seeing as how she was effectively being driven out of the company she helped co-found.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    In order of reliability, things we probably know about Tinder: * Mateen did supervise Wolfe. * Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly). * The text messages in the exhibits in the complaint actually occurred. At this point, vice-grip mortal-lock "bad" seems to be just a "Tinder and/or IAC's management knew this was happening" showing away, right?
    - dbloom 12y ago
      > * Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly). It is very unusual to see a company actually acknowledge an allegation like that. But do you think it was a bad idea to do so? Obviously it has legal ramifications. They're literally admitting guilt. But Tinder/IAC will have to work to do to demonstrate that they care about having a healthy workplace culture. And this seems like a good way to lend credibility to the fact that they take that responsibility seriously (instead of just FUD-ing the victim with a vaguely worded statement).

by dbloom 12y ago

j4kp07 12y ago

Key word: Private. Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating.

aikah 12y ago
IANAL but AFAIK if I send a mail to you it's not private and can totally be accepted as evidence in a court of law.There is no notion of privacy in sending a mail,a text message,... the only thing that would not be admissible is if I recorded a conversation between us without telling you you are on record.
- tbrownaw 12y ago
  the only thing that would not be admissible is if I recorded a conversation between us without telling you you are on record. Doesn't that vary by state? IIRC in some you can record anything you're involved in while in others everyone involved has to agree (or at least know?). Or maybe this was about getting sued under privacy laws rather than admissibility...
dbloom 12y ago
> Key word: Private. This is a ballpark guess, but probably about 99% of workplace harassment is done privately. > Where do you draw the line when you work with and are dating the same person? The only fault I see here on IAC is hiring people who are dating. If a manager has a relationship with a subordinate, the manager should be held accountable for that, not the subordinate.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  If a manager has a relationship with a subordinate, the manager should be held accountable for that, not the subordinate. That's a great rule for the company, and it would be awesome if it existed at more places.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - dbloom 12y ago
    Directly from the complaint: "Justin Mateen joined Tinder as Chief Marketing Officer, a position that made him Ms. Wolfe’s direct supervisor. Within two months after he became an employee, in November 2012, Mr. Mateen began pursuing a romantic relationship with Ms. Wolfe." http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Exhibits-1.pdf http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex... (page 5, paragraph 19)
tootie 12y ago
I think the accusation is that she was mistreated at work because of this.
alttab 12y ago
I say shame on them both for getting romantically involved as co-founders. IAC probably didn't know or know the extent.
- danielweber 12y ago
  Ignoring the romantic relationship, check pages 6 and 7 for how multiple officers didn't want a "girl" to be seen as a co-founder. It's not as salacious but the allegations, if true, move things out of the "one rogue manager" territory.
  - alttab 12y ago
    The entire complaint is rather damning. This is something I would expect from the Snapchat guys, but wow.
    - toomuchtodo 12y ago
      > This is something I would expect from the Snapchat guys, but wow. And Tinder is any different.....how?
      - alttab 12y ago
        AFAIK, the Tinder guys were not the ones with a leaked Fraternity leadership e-mail that clearly exposed them as misogynistic douches with little sensitivity outside their bro-ubble. That said, Tinder and Snapchat are two peas in a pod, eh?
DanBC 12y ago
It seems she was willing to talk to him about work and had asked him to concentrate on work stuff. It seems he declined to do so. It also seems that some of his comments were made from work accounts, to work accounts, on work hardware, or face to face on work premises.

walshemj 12y ago

I hate to be that guy but if you suspend some one to investigate serious allegation you don't blurt out "he did it" before the investigation is complete and you have disciplined the employee. to misquote alice and wonderland "Trial first then the sentence"

danielweber 12y ago
The standard procedure in any harassment case is this bulleted list: * Put the worker on leave and conduct investigation.
- walshemj 12y ago
  Thank you the point which all the down votes on my comment seemed to have missed! no wonder sv and start ups seem to have HR disasters every other day - they seem to lack even basic understanding of employment law and best practice.
dbloom 12y ago
So you're saying that Ms. Wolfe can accuse him of sending harassing messages, but IAC can't? Even if IAC has irrefutable evidence that it happened?
- discardorama 12y ago
  Does the "it became clear" in IAC's statement mean nothing to you?
  - dbloom 12y ago
    It means that they have irrefutable evidence, as I said before. What does it mean to you?
- walshemj 12y ago
  IAC can what it likes but disclosing this while its own investigation is still in progress could lead to him getting a better result than he deserves ie he might say my employer did not follow the rules so I am claiming unfair dismissal and win compensation. Incompetence or deliberate mistake?

cjslep 12y ago

I agree with you. What I really dislike though is how this kind of hate begets more hate. I was surprised to see so many downvoted-into-oblivion comments so soon after submission. There's already foul name calling, and hints of intolerance. So on top of "there's no reason to defend this guy", I don't think it is constructive to attack each other here in such negative ways. Edit for clarification: Now that there are 80+ more comments it seems more constructive. There were quite a few in the first ~20 that were pretty sour.

dbloom 12y ago
The reason that I downvote most (not all!) of those comments is: 1. They emphasize a culture of doubt about these accusations, which may discourage people in a situation like Ms. Wolfe's from stepping forward. On the other hand, the accused people in power really don't need our help to defend themselves. 2. They're formulaic, repetitive, and uninteresting. Most could probably have been written by a misandry chatbot. They don't bring any new ideas to the table. And while I try hard to be diplomatic when I write critical replies to those comments...I can empathize with those who are a little harsher.
- tomp 12y ago
  I don't know about the US, but in the UK the situation regarding (1) is the reverse. In the recent scandal, the (student) president of Oxford Union was publicly accused and arrested because of rape allegations. He was subsequently found innocent and one of the victims apparently made up the whole story, but in the meantime a lot of influential people have cancelled their talks at the Union and his name is smeared for life, while there have been no negative consequences (yet) for the lying accuser - she can't even be named publicly! Apparently, this has spurned a conversation in the UK media whether the names of people accused of sex crimes should be kept confidential until they are found guilty, in order to avoid ruining innocent people's lives.
  - dbloom 12y ago
    I agree on the point that allegations aren't true 100% of the time. And it is tragic when someone's reputation is irreparably tarnished as a result of a false accusation. But it's important to keep in mind that the vast majority of rape accusations are true[1], and this likely carries over to accusations of sexual and gender-based harassment as well. Statistically, it makes sense to give the accuser the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather unfairly tarnish the reputation of a small minority of the accused, than attack the reputation of the accusers (the vast majority of whom truly are victims of a terrible, heinous crime). This doesn't mean that the accused shouldn't get a fair legal trial. But I think it does affect how they should be treated by the court of public opinion (until they are exonerated, in the rare cases where that actually happens). [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estimates_of_prevalence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_accusation_of_rape#Estima...

tptacek 12y ago

You can read the actual complaint here: http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Exhibits-1.pdf http://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Ex... It's bad.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
rayiner 12y ago
The allegations, if true, are bad. > Mr. Mateen went on to say that he didn’t want boys trying to date Ms. Wolfe due to her co-founder status, and that being a female co-founder of Tinder was 'slutty' because it is an app people use 'to hook up.' On a tangential note: it's interesting to see the very weak bargaining on her part on pages 64-65, where she's trying to talk to Sean Rad about her equity. Textbook wrong way to approach it for both parties. He should've been soft, to encourage her not to sue, and she should've been the one with a hard edge, seeing as how she was effectively being driven out of the company she helped co-found.
- tptacek 12y ago
  In order of reliability, things we probably know about Tinder: * Mateen did supervise Wolfe. * Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly). * The text messages in the exhibits in the complaint actually occurred. At this point, vice-grip mortal-lock "bad" seems to be just a "Tinder and/or IAC's management knew this was happening" showing away, right?
  - dbloom 12y ago
    > * Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly). It is very unusual to see a company actually acknowledge an allegation like that. But do you think it was a bad idea to do so? Obviously it has legal ramifications. They're literally admitting guilt. But Tinder/IAC will have to work to do to demonstrate that they care about having a healthy workplace culture. And this seems like a good way to lend credibility to the fact that they take that responsibility seriously (instead of just FUD-ing the victim with a vaguely worded statement).