the interview went off the rails because she insisted their answers werent valid. She was told she was fired for performance reasons (whether true in reality or not is questionable). i dont know if arguing with the exit interviewers has any point to it, shouldnt she just see an employment lawyer instead?
By all means argue that they made her feel that it was not possible or sensible to try to do the job she wanted to do. But she resigned, and that's not the same thing.
It's very difficult to deduce causality in that situation. She could have been fired due to not fitting in with the organization due to her valid concerns, or she could have brought up concerns due to bias from being fired. It is most likely somewhere in the middle, where her observations were somewhat truthful and somewhat biased.
They didn't fire her. She said "I will quit if you don't meet these demands" and they were unwilling to meet the demands.
If she didn't threaten to quit, I can't imagine they would've done anything other than tell her no. But she gave them an ultimatum and they chose which side they would be on.
You obviously have no clue as to the point of her video or the companies response. They could not give her an exact reason for the termination, which every employee deserves. Even the CEO admits what a crappy job they did, but all you got out of it was she was trying to argue out of being terminated. I think you should apply for a job at the company as you are great management matterall for this company...
I'm surprised they kept her around so long. I am wondering why they just didn't bring her in, transfer her to a new team, and tell her she was no longer "a good cultural fit" with the team. In a at will:right to work state that is a totally legal way to fire a high performing employee (I think).
It's almost like they enjoyed watching her complain. Glad she got out.
Her exit from the company was not due to her research. It was for her behavior and her attitude. The paper was just the catalyst that kicked everything else off.
Why did they not fight to keep her, if she was so singularly brilliant? IMO, it's because she wasn't an employee they wanted to keep around.
People don't get fired for asking for opportunities to respond to criticisms. My guess is there were previous incidences regarding her behavior and, in this situation, she threatened to quit and they accepted.
Based on the timing it doesn't seem like your "Apparently (1) wasn’t sufficient to justify her actions, so she’s had to resort to (2)" conclusion makes sense. It wasn't like she gave out a lot of specifics, and when people thought that wasn't enough evidence that she then resorted to "vague and non-specific" claims. The timing was the opposite.
My guess (having seen other examples of this) is the board depended too much on the legal advice they got. That is, I'm sure their lawyers recommended giving as few details as possible, because every detail you give is a potential opening for a lawsuit. This is generally standard legal advice when firing someone. The problem with that advice is that while it may make sense from a purely legal perspective, it is absolutely horrible practical advice when it comes to communicating their rationale for a decision of this magnitude.
She was fired for violating company confidentiality, anything she says otherwise about her gender, race, culture, etc is just a deflection, but it’s probably coming.
I don't think we'll ever know whether she's right or wrong. She could quite possibly be in the wrong, but I increasingly doubt it the more I read.
Here's why: her firm acted like a massive dick.
First, making employees sign a non-disparagement, arbitration-only agreement (except as a term in a severance negotiation) is vile and should be illegal. You're effectively threatening to fire someone (or rescind an offer) if he or she doesn't give up a basic right.
All of these "Here's what rights you would have if we fired you, but you have to give them up to work for us" terms (non-disparagement, non-litigation or arbitration-only, non-solicitation of employees) are unethical and only exist because most people can't afford to be without an income. They are contracts under duress and should be categorically stricken.
Second, rather than arguing that the discrimination claims are untrue by bashing the employee's performance, the appropriate thing to do would have been to establish with actual data (not performance reviews, which can be fudged) that she wasn't experienced enough for the promotion, and that she would have been the least qualified person at that level if she had been promoted. The proper way to handle a bogus harassment claim (if it is that, and I doubt it given the way the firm has behaved) is to show the person's trajectory of promotions, and then show the average for a person of that experience, and to use hard data. "The average partner makes senior partner after 7 years. She was only here for 4." Or: "To make senior partner, we generally expect that a person bring in $20 million in business. She brought in $12 million." That's what you do if you're decent.
Also, the truth is that a company in that position will almost never need to air performance reviews. Unless this was a "lock-step" or expected promotion where it's professionally damaging not to get it, the onus is (or at least should be) on her to prove, using hard data, that she did deserve to get the promotion. If they were decent, they'd sit back and wait for her to make a case that she did deserve the promotion, and then argue against that.
Third, they are asking to have her pay their legal fees. They are a venture capital firm. When you're that rich, trying to scrounge money off of people who are quite possibly not rich is pretty debased: an inverse Robin Hood sort of thing.
Fourth, using performance reviews for anything other than direct feedback is immoral and, itself, constitutes legalized (but ethically illegitimate) harassment. If performance reviews are confidential between manager and employee, then that's how things should be. They should be direct feedback for mutual benefit, and nothing more. If they're aired to the public, that's wrong. That's effectively extortion.
She gains the veneer of credibility after being fired for possibly not doing her job.
We have no idea if that's the case, but it's actually pretty easy to see how someone who is arguing with their managers over 'how to report' is then fired, and then makes some grandiose claims.
In her mind she might not even be lying when that could be the case. She believes she's being asked to 'censor' when maybe that's not the case.
We don't know, but we need to know exactly what she was asked to do and not before drawing conclusions.
reply