3 ms·
She didn't cry wolf. She was unfairly treated by her employer. Gender was probably involved in some cases of maltreatment. But a jury ruled that her employer di
by michaelochurch 12y ago
She didn't cry wolf. She was unfairly treated by her employer. Gender was probably involved in some cases of maltreatment. But a jury ruled that her employer did not violate the Civil Rights Act. There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law.
- bequanna 12y agoSorry, I should have been more clear. I don't know if she was lying. But, if people view her as dishonest, I think that most certainly does harm to the underlying claim (in the public's opinion) that women in Tech are mistreated. > There's a difference between a company being shitty and it breaking the law. I agree. Strip mining is pretty shitty. Fracking too. But what's your point? Our courts shouldn't be used to expose 'shitty' companies. They should be used to punish unlawful actions.
- mbreese 12y agoBut who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.
- bequanna 12y agoWhat? I think you're confused. It isn't the purpose of the US Judicial system to look at an action and say 'We don't like that asshole, so we're going to just say what he did was illegal and punish him'. You need to cite a specific infraction, charge them with it, and then prove that person/firm committed that crime. It sounds like you would rather start with an action that upsets you, make it illegal and retroactively punish people. This is pretty much the opposite of how our system is supposed to work.
- forgottenpass 12y ago* But who decides if an action is unlawful? Oh, that's right... the courts.* Your comment can be massaged into something reasonable with a bit of after the fact recasting, but in the context of the parent post that's possibly the most misleading way to characterize trials and judicial review that I've ever seen.