9 ms·

I really hope you looked into suing them, because that was transparently unethical and illegal.

by srdev 12y ago

bequanna 12y ago
Statements like this are the problem. You've heard one side's version and have very few facts. What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse.
- ryguytilidie 12y ago
  No one is "rushing to judgement". The response wasn't "you win your lawsuit, here is lots of money". The person simply encouraged them to look into a lawsuit, which in itself just means you take your case before a judge and the judge decides who should win the case. You really did your best to create a strawman and beat the crap out of it here. If you are saying things like "You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future." to discourage a woman from considering a lawsuit when she got fired over maternity leave than YOU are the problem, plain and simple.
- srdev 12y ago
  They should fire someone for well-documented causes, in which case there is no issue. I happen to think that it should be non-trivial to fire someone. If they are a poor performer then it shouldn't be hard to actually document that. If you're going to outsource a division, then lay off your pregnant women along with the rest of the workers that are going to be part of that lay off. Singling out a single pregnant woman for a pre-emptive firing, separate from the rest of her coworkers, reeks of discrimination and should rightly be cause for lawsuit. > You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. I wouldn't be, actually, because people in general tend to hold onto unfounded ideas. I find that its pretty simple to fire someone in a protected class in practice if you are actually professional about it and document the reasons. Its just not trivial, which is what bad employers tend to want. > Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse. Lawsuits are how facts in disputes are established. The question is whether there is enough doubt here to warrant a lawsuit, and it really seems like there is.
  - derefr 12y ago
    So, what if you want to fire someone because they're just really annoying to be around, and their coworkers are complaining that they hate coming to work and dealing with that person? (This is commonly euphemized as a "lack of culture fit.") There's no actual productivity loss in such a case; there's just a bunch of unhappy coworkers who have one fewer reason to stay when a head-hunter approaches them. This is basically why companies fight for at-will employment: they want the ability to fire people for what are essentially petty, yet still important reasons, without having to ever say that sort of thing out loud. Because, you know, any company that actually admitted that it did that would be tarred in the press—not for doing it, but for failing to be discreet about it.
    - Frondo 12y ago
      I find it distressing that I could be fired, despite (presumably) doing my job well, because my coworkers disliked me. I realize that's America, but that does not seem like the kind of world I would want to live in, if I were making the rules.
    - srdev 12y ago
      In the past we've documented interpersonal issues in the performance review and developed goals around fixing any glaring issues. But coworkers are also expected to be professional and raise issues that are actually affecting team effectiveness, and not just complain about a person because they are not fun or personable.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Employers who purposefully limit hiring of women and minorities out of fear of legal risk are acting unlawfully.
  - bequanna 12y ago
    This is the real world. Perceptions matter. Do you imagine that these people will openly disclose that they are discriminating? Good luck proving that a manager has an (un)conscious bias against women/minorities because they are afraid of lawsuits.
    - tptacek 12y ago
      This is the real world. If I worked at a firm that I learned was doing this (for instance, because I was on the hiring committee, saw the resume feed, and noticed women weren't getting interviews), I'd blow the whistle. If we got evidence that a company was actively pursuing a strategy like this, they'd be a pariah overnight. Team members would quit. Every job ad they posted would be accompanied by comments and catcalls. Candidates would be embarrassed to consider jobs there. A huge fraction of the best-qualified candidates would select themselves out of consideration. You'd have to be a comprehensively incompetent manager to allow this to happen at your company.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        Conversely, given that the whistle is not blown at most tech companies, team members aren't quitting, and job ads are not accompanied by catcalls, we can conclude that discrimination is rarely/never happening in the tech industry. That's the probabilistic converse of your claim. Do you endorse it? If not, why not?
        tedunangst 12y ago
        I don't think it was implied that a particular form of hiring funnel discrimination was the only form of discrimination in tech.
- sinatra 12y ago
  Exactly! It's easy to rush to judgement and say "sue the employer" when you've only heard one side of the story. My wife's friend recently had a baby, and she exploited the situation to the full. She didn't come to work for almost 7 months using various excuses, and she was openly telling her friends at work about how she was exploiting the situation. I don't know how much management knew about it, but they didn't fire her because they were afraid of getting sued. Management isn't always bad by definition! I am obviously not saying that everyone exploits maternity. I'm just highlighting that there can be another side to the story. Isn't it possible that the management was already considering letting the Director of Engineering (a role that by definition is not going to have a lot of peers) go? What do they do if she's pregnant at the same time? Wait for 6 months just so they don't get sued? EDIT: Can't respond in a reply, so I am responding here. "Exploiting a situation" doesn't mean utilizing benefits legally given to you. An example of exploiting the situation will be: My employer is required to give me paid sick leave. So, even if I'm not sick, I'll claim that I am and get paid for taking time off. And usually, it's not the employer who gets hurt by something short-term like this. It's my peers who have to pick up the slack.
  - anigbrowl 12y ago
    How dare someone exploit the benefits that are legally available! Employers can insure against the economic risk of having someone become pregnant. And you know what, just budget for that in your cost of hiring once you are big enough to have a full time payroll and HR person on staff. And start planning to give fathers leave as well. If you (qua hypothetical business owner) can't cope with the fact that your employees are human being and that human beings have reasonable needs, then what good are you?
    - refurb 12y ago
      What's the latest HN rule? Assume the best intention of the poster? You did the exact opposite!
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        I was responding to: My wife's friend recently had a baby, and she exploited the situation to the full. [...] And I'm basically saying, why shouldn't she?
- michaelochurch 12y ago
  Statements like this are the problem. You've heard one side's version and have very few facts. What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. You're defending a company that fired a woman who was 9 months pregnant. I did not downvote your comment. I downvoted you as a person for your comment.
  - bequanna 12y ago
    All you know is this person is a woman and was pregnant. Imagine a man who was recently discovered he had cancer was fired. That sucks. But it doesn't make sense to automatically assume the cancer is why he was let go. Sure, maybe the employer is shitty, or maybe he was just a shitty employee.
    - srdev 12y ago
      Well we know what they claimed, which is that they were a pregnant woman who was laid off because of outsourcing but mysteriously she was the only one who lost her job. It may not have been a discriminatory firing, but that would be one hell of a coincidence. We don't know if what she claims is accurate, true, or even if this company exists. Any comments made are in the context of her statements and assuming they are accurate. Obviously, if she is mistaken then consulting with a lawyer would help reveal that. Telling her to investigate a lawsuit is the correct course given the information we have, and I don't feel any need whatsoever to give the employer a benefit of the doubt. If they are in the clear, then that will be revealed if said employee's lawyer states she has no case.
    - fsloth 12y ago
      "Corporate Confidential" by Cynthia Shapiro draws a particular picture how corporate management thinks. If there is any personal detail that would reasonably lead to expect the persons performance to drop in near future and there is a legal way to let go of the person, there is a very strong motivation to do exactly that.
- s73v3r 12y ago
  "What is an employer to do?" Don't be a fuckhead? I can't honestly say I care about their "problems" in this situation.
- Retra 12y ago
  I can sue you, if I wanted. It doesn't mean you're guilty of wrongdoing. It means I'm exercising my right to use the legal process to resolve conflict. I really don't see how you think that's the problem. PS: The UNNAMED employer was really vilified here. Damn them!
  - bequanna 12y ago
    If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. This isn't hypothetical. This is actually happening.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      > If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. The solution is to make them also think that people in these classes are equally likely to sue if not hired, and particularly likely to win if the employer is, in fact, discriminating against them in hiring.
      - bequanna 12y ago
        I don't disagree with that solution, I just don't know how it would be implemented. I seems like it is much easier to prove discrimination existed when firing vs. discrimination when hiring. I think that instead of being focused on enforcement and punishments, we should be focused on eliminating discrimination by changing perceptions.
        chipotle_coyote 12y ago
        I think that instead of being focused on enforcement and punishments, we should be focused on eliminating discrimination by changing perceptions. I don't think those are mutually exclusive.
    - Retra 12y ago
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse. The employer hasn't been identified, and so can't be vilified. Sure, people responding to the characterization are responding to a one-sided characterization, but they are mostly providing recommendations of how the person providing that characterization should deal with it, based on the assumption that the characterization is accurate. I'm not sure what problem you suppose this is going to "make worse".
  - bequanna 12y ago
    > I'm not sure what problem you suppose this is going to "make worse". Discrimination.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      How, exactly, is what has gone on in this thread supposed to do that?
      - bequanna 12y ago
        If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. This doesn't help fix discrimination at all, it makes it worse.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. If they are more likely to sue when they receive an adverse employment outcome (firing) why wouldn't they be more likely to sue when they receive an adverse employment outcome (not being hired), and, if the employer is actually discriminating, as you suggest, in hiring (but would be doing "nothing wrong" in firing), wouldn't the hiring discrimination pose a bigger risk than not discriminating, since they face the lawsuit risk with either adverse action, but a greater risk of losing the lawsuit in the situation where the facts will actually bear out that they are discriminating based on legally-prohibited criteria?
- ossreality 12y ago
  ""You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. "" This is made up hogwash. LMAO. I'd bet every dime to my name on it.
- dmansen 12y ago
  lol you cannot be serious
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- nandemo 12y ago
  > What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? FWIW, in Brazil it's illegal for an employer to fire a pregnant woman.
- taftw1401 12y ago
  Thank you for this comment. Adding anecdotal evidence using a throwaway for obvious reasons (some minor details changed for the same): A long time ago in a location far, far away, I was hired into a mid-size (300 employees), relatively successful, few-years-old B2B startup (growing, starting to become profitable) to sort out major issues with a department that happened to be my specialty. I rapidly figured out the problems stemmed from the top: the head of the department was a woman with an MBA who was utterly incompetent at her job, and who had been there for about a year and a half to build it. I came to this conclusion in various ways. First, her work was abysmal when I looked at it, and demonstrated complete ignorance of the technical field she was supposed to work in - she had an MBA and her attitude was "I don't need to learn anything technical because it's my underlings' job", but her underlings had about the same technical skills. Her lack of output adversely impacted fundraising for the C round, which strained the company finances and caused management to hire me in desperation. Second, every single stakeholder I talked to in the company - from heads of departments to junior staff - thought she was abysmally incompetent and her work was severely lacking. In some cases, the frustration was so strong as to border on the personal. I talked to over 40 people and could not find a single champion of her work. It was clear that the company expected me not just to fix her problems but to make a good case to get rid of her as well. A month into the project, I realized management was very evasive whenever I tried to bring evidence to the case to be made to replace her. I learnt through the grapevine that she had gotten the management team into a room and announced her pregnancy ("hey guys, I have some really good personal news to share with you!" - yes, she was that transparent). The news spread gradually throughout the company, and as it did, an eerie silence replaced the comments as stakeholders resigned themselves to their fate. I left the project unable to effect the change I had been hired to do (she refused to use any of my work and blocked anybody else from using it), and she was still employed there two years later. For what it's worth, I've seen plenty more evidence of bias in the other direction, including an employee I had personally hired for her exceptional skill who was later fired - I am about 80% certain - because my replacement as team lead didn't like working with women (he argued budget cuts but she was the only one fired in a team of 30). But thought I'd throw this story in as an example from the other side.

I really hope you looked into suing them, because that was transparently unethical and illegal.

by srdev 12y ago

I really hope you looked into suing them, because that was transparently unethical and illegal.

Statements like this are the problem. You've heard one side's version and have very few facts. What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse.

ryguytilidie 12y ago
No one is "rushing to judgement". The response wasn't "you win your lawsuit, here is lots of money". The person simply encouraged them to look into a lawsuit, which in itself just means you take your case before a judge and the judge decides who should win the case. You really did your best to create a strawman and beat the crap out of it here. If you are saying things like "You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future." to discourage a woman from considering a lawsuit when she got fired over maternity leave than YOU are the problem, plain and simple.
srdev 12y ago
They should fire someone for well-documented causes, in which case there is no issue. I happen to think that it should be non-trivial to fire someone. If they are a poor performer then it shouldn't be hard to actually document that. If you're going to outsource a division, then lay off your pregnant women along with the rest of the workers that are going to be part of that lay off. Singling out a single pregnant woman for a pre-emptive firing, separate from the rest of her coworkers, reeks of discrimination and should rightly be cause for lawsuit. > You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. I wouldn't be, actually, because people in general tend to hold onto unfounded ideas. I find that its pretty simple to fire someone in a protected class in practice if you are actually professional about it and document the reasons. Its just not trivial, which is what bad employers tend to want. > Edit: Downvote away. The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse. Lawsuits are how facts in disputes are established. The question is whether there is enough doubt here to warrant a lawsuit, and it really seems like there is.
- derefr 12y ago
  So, what if you want to fire someone because they're just really annoying to be around, and their coworkers are complaining that they hate coming to work and dealing with that person? (This is commonly euphemized as a "lack of culture fit.") There's no actual productivity loss in such a case; there's just a bunch of unhappy coworkers who have one fewer reason to stay when a head-hunter approaches them. This is basically why companies fight for at-will employment: they want the ability to fire people for what are essentially petty, yet still important reasons, without having to ever say that sort of thing out loud. Because, you know, any company that actually admitted that it did that would be tarred in the press—not for doing it, but for failing to be discreet about it.
  - Frondo 12y ago
    I find it distressing that I could be fired, despite (presumably) doing my job well, because my coworkers disliked me. I realize that's America, but that does not seem like the kind of world I would want to live in, if I were making the rules.
  - srdev 12y ago
    In the past we've documented interpersonal issues in the performance review and developed goals around fixing any glaring issues. But coworkers are also expected to be professional and raise issues that are actually affecting team effectiveness, and not just complain about a person because they are not fun or personable.
tptacek 12y ago
Employers who purposefully limit hiring of women and minorities out of fear of legal risk are acting unlawfully.
- bequanna 12y ago
  This is the real world. Perceptions matter. Do you imagine that these people will openly disclose that they are discriminating? Good luck proving that a manager has an (un)conscious bias against women/minorities because they are afraid of lawsuits.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    This is the real world. If I worked at a firm that I learned was doing this (for instance, because I was on the hiring committee, saw the resume feed, and noticed women weren't getting interviews), I'd blow the whistle. If we got evidence that a company was actively pursuing a strategy like this, they'd be a pariah overnight. Team members would quit. Every job ad they posted would be accompanied by comments and catcalls. Candidates would be embarrassed to consider jobs there. A huge fraction of the best-qualified candidates would select themselves out of consideration. You'd have to be a comprehensively incompetent manager to allow this to happen at your company.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      Conversely, given that the whistle is not blown at most tech companies, team members aren't quitting, and job ads are not accompanied by catcalls, we can conclude that discrimination is rarely/never happening in the tech industry. That's the probabilistic converse of your claim. Do you endorse it? If not, why not?
      - tedunangst 12y ago
        I don't think it was implied that a particular form of hiring funnel discrimination was the only form of discrimination in tech.
sinatra 12y ago
Exactly! It's easy to rush to judgement and say "sue the employer" when you've only heard one side of the story. My wife's friend recently had a baby, and she exploited the situation to the full. She didn't come to work for almost 7 months using various excuses, and she was openly telling her friends at work about how she was exploiting the situation. I don't know how much management knew about it, but they didn't fire her because they were afraid of getting sued. Management isn't always bad by definition! I am obviously not saying that everyone exploits maternity. I'm just highlighting that there can be another side to the story. Isn't it possible that the management was already considering letting the Director of Engineering (a role that by definition is not going to have a lot of peers) go? What do they do if she's pregnant at the same time? Wait for 6 months just so they don't get sued? EDIT: Can't respond in a reply, so I am responding here. "Exploiting a situation" doesn't mean utilizing benefits legally given to you. An example of exploiting the situation will be: My employer is required to give me paid sick leave. So, even if I'm not sick, I'll claim that I am and get paid for taking time off. And usually, it's not the employer who gets hurt by something short-term like this. It's my peers who have to pick up the slack.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  How dare someone exploit the benefits that are legally available! Employers can insure against the economic risk of having someone become pregnant. And you know what, just budget for that in your cost of hiring once you are big enough to have a full time payroll and HR person on staff. And start planning to give fathers leave as well. If you (qua hypothetical business owner) can't cope with the fact that your employees are human being and that human beings have reasonable needs, then what good are you?
  - refurb 12y ago
    What's the latest HN rule? Assume the best intention of the poster? You did the exact opposite!
    - anigbrowl 12y ago
      I was responding to: My wife's friend recently had a baby, and she exploited the situation to the full. [...] And I'm basically saying, why shouldn't she?
michaelochurch 12y ago
Statements like this are the problem. You've heard one side's version and have very few facts. What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. You're defending a company that fired a woman who was 9 months pregnant. I did not downvote your comment. I downvoted you as a person for your comment.
- bequanna 12y ago
  All you know is this person is a woman and was pregnant. Imagine a man who was recently discovered he had cancer was fired. That sucks. But it doesn't make sense to automatically assume the cancer is why he was let go. Sure, maybe the employer is shitty, or maybe he was just a shitty employee.
  - srdev 12y ago
    Well we know what they claimed, which is that they were a pregnant woman who was laid off because of outsourcing but mysteriously she was the only one who lost her job. It may not have been a discriminatory firing, but that would be one hell of a coincidence. We don't know if what she claims is accurate, true, or even if this company exists. Any comments made are in the context of her statements and assuming they are accurate. Obviously, if she is mistaken then consulting with a lawyer would help reveal that. Telling her to investigate a lawsuit is the correct course given the information we have, and I don't feel any need whatsoever to give the employer a benefit of the doubt. If they are in the clear, then that will be revealed if said employee's lawyer states she has no case.
  - fsloth 12y ago
    "Corporate Confidential" by Cynthia Shapiro draws a particular picture how corporate management thinks. If there is any personal detail that would reasonably lead to expect the persons performance to drop in near future and there is a legal way to let go of the person, there is a very strong motivation to do exactly that.
s73v3r 12y ago
"What is an employer to do?" Don't be a fuckhead? I can't honestly say I care about their "problems" in this situation.
Retra 12y ago
I can sue you, if I wanted. It doesn't mean you're guilty of wrongdoing. It means I'm exercising my right to use the legal process to resolve conflict. I really don't see how you think that's the problem. PS: The UNNAMED employer was really vilified here. Damn them!
- bequanna 12y ago
  If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. This isn't hypothetical. This is actually happening.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. The solution is to make them also think that people in these classes are equally likely to sue if not hired, and particularly likely to win if the employer is, in fact, discriminating against them in hiring.
    - bequanna 12y ago
      I don't disagree with that solution, I just don't know how it would be implemented. I seems like it is much easier to prove discrimination existed when firing vs. discrimination when hiring. I think that instead of being focused on enforcement and punishments, we should be focused on eliminating discrimination by changing perceptions.
      - chipotle_coyote 12y ago
        I think that instead of being focused on enforcement and punishments, we should be focused on eliminating discrimination by changing perceptions. I don't think those are mutually exclusive.
  - Retra 12y ago
dragonwriter 12y ago
> The truth is, rushing to judgement and vilifying an employer without having facts is only going to make this problem worse. The employer hasn't been identified, and so can't be vilified. Sure, people responding to the characterization are responding to a one-sided characterization, but they are mostly providing recommendations of how the person providing that characterization should deal with it, based on the assumption that the characterization is accurate. I'm not sure what problem you suppose this is going to "make worse".
- bequanna 12y ago
  > I'm not sure what problem you suppose this is going to "make worse". Discrimination.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    How, exactly, is what has gone on in this thread supposed to do that?
    - bequanna 12y ago
      If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. This doesn't help fix discrimination at all, it makes it worse.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > If some employers think people in protected classes are more likely to sue when let go (even if the employer did nothing wrong), they might be less likely to hire them in the first place. If they are more likely to sue when they receive an adverse employment outcome (firing) why wouldn't they be more likely to sue when they receive an adverse employment outcome (not being hired), and, if the employer is actually discriminating, as you suggest, in hiring (but would be doing "nothing wrong" in firing), wouldn't the hiring discrimination pose a bigger risk than not discriminating, since they face the lawsuit risk with either adverse action, but a greater risk of losing the lawsuit in the situation where the facts will actually bear out that they are discriminating based on legally-prohibited criteria?
ossreality 12y ago
""You would be surprised how many employers are afraid to boost female/minority hiring because they are afraid of opening themselves up to lawsuits if the need to let that person go in the future. "" This is made up hogwash. LMAO. I'd bet every dime to my name on it.
dmansen 12y ago
lol you cannot be serious
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
nandemo 12y ago
> What is an employer to do? Never fire anyone in a protected class? FWIW, in Brazil it's illegal for an employer to fire a pregnant woman.
taftw1401 12y ago
Thank you for this comment. Adding anecdotal evidence using a throwaway for obvious reasons (some minor details changed for the same): A long time ago in a location far, far away, I was hired into a mid-size (300 employees), relatively successful, few-years-old B2B startup (growing, starting to become profitable) to sort out major issues with a department that happened to be my specialty. I rapidly figured out the problems stemmed from the top: the head of the department was a woman with an MBA who was utterly incompetent at her job, and who had been there for about a year and a half to build it. I came to this conclusion in various ways. First, her work was abysmal when I looked at it, and demonstrated complete ignorance of the technical field she was supposed to work in - she had an MBA and her attitude was "I don't need to learn anything technical because it's my underlings' job", but her underlings had about the same technical skills. Her lack of output adversely impacted fundraising for the C round, which strained the company finances and caused management to hire me in desperation. Second, every single stakeholder I talked to in the company - from heads of departments to junior staff - thought she was abysmally incompetent and her work was severely lacking. In some cases, the frustration was so strong as to border on the personal. I talked to over 40 people and could not find a single champion of her work. It was clear that the company expected me not just to fix her problems but to make a good case to get rid of her as well. A month into the project, I realized management was very evasive whenever I tried to bring evidence to the case to be made to replace her. I learnt through the grapevine that she had gotten the management team into a room and announced her pregnancy ("hey guys, I have some really good personal news to share with you!" - yes, she was that transparent). The news spread gradually throughout the company, and as it did, an eerie silence replaced the comments as stakeholders resigned themselves to their fate. I left the project unable to effect the change I had been hired to do (she refused to use any of my work and blocked anybody else from using it), and she was still employed there two years later. For what it's worth, I've seen plenty more evidence of bias in the other direction, including an employee I had personally hired for her exceptional skill who was later fired - I am about 80% certain - because my replacement as team lead didn't like working with women (he argued budget cuts but she was the only one fired in a team of 30). But thought I'd throw this story in as an example from the other side.