A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
iSteve Blog
The True Story of the Tinder War on Women Crisis

Rich straight men of dubious personal morals, such as Donald Sterling and Dov Charney, attract adventuresses. Recently, “Silicon Valley” (which increasingly is located in San Francisco or even New York or Los Angeles as the Big Money goes less to engineering firms and more social media start-ups that are basically marketing) has become attractive to golddigging adventuresses. So, this week, we are all supposed to be agog over a sexual harassment lawsuit filed by a young lady against a West Hollywood start-up Tinder, which is supposed to be sort of Grinder for heterosexuals. This would seem more like TMZ stuff, except that the Serious News Organs have been on a crusade to stamp out the Alpha Male Bro Culture entrenched among the Dilberts and Wallys of America in the name of gender equality.

Commenter Officious Intermeddler has read the legal complaint in the Tinder brouhaha:

Elaborating on Color Me Surprised’s point, I actually read the plaintiff’s absurd complaint. For your possible entertainment, here’s something that I posted on Slate [in the comments]. I swear to you that this is an fair and accurate summary of her complaint, leaving out nothing substantive that it says to bolster her case, although I have added a few asides to the chronology in [square brackets] that I didn’t include in my Slate comments.

Omitting mere rhetoric, here is what the plaintiff’s court papers say:

1. The 24-year-old plaintiff had been in charge of marketing at the company. In September 2012, however, the company hired somebody else to take over her job. He became her boss.

2. In November 2012, her new boss began “pursuing a romantic relationship” with her.

3. In February 2013, after an unspecified number of dalliances, plaintiff and her boss began “officially dating.”

4. In “early 2013″ [right after she started sleeping with her boss], plaintiff “began doing more and more press interviews and features” on behalf of the company.

5. In April 2013 [right after she became his "official" girlfriend, whatever that means], the company gave plaintiff a bunch of stock options.

6. In September 2013, plaintiff had the first of “several” breakups with her boyfriend/boss. [the complaint refers to a continuing series of "breakups" lasting for the next three months, whatever THAT means]

7. In early November 2013, the company took away plaintiff’s “co-founder” title.

8. In late November 2013, plaintiff “gave the relationship a second chance.” [i.e., when she found that she had been demoted for breaking up with him, she decided to try to make up]

9. On December 12, 2013 [a couple of weeks after getting back with him], plaintiff “ended the relationship” with her boyfriend/boss, except for “a couple of isolated incidents in the next two months.” [i.e. she kept sleeping with him until February 2014, which adds to my confusion about what she means by "breaking up"]

10. At various unspecified times, Plaintiff’s boss (and now ex-boyfriend) accused her angrily of screwing around with other men [since she never denies this in her complaint, we can assume it is true], being a slut and a whore and a gold digger [which doesn't seem like an unfair inference on his part], both to her face and in emails and texts, and said nasty things about her to other people, including people at work. Plaintiff and her boss had at least one loud argument in the company’s offices.

11. In “spring 2014 [this must mean March, less than a month after she stopped sleeping with her boss],” plaintiff met the CEO’s new girlfriend and “came to consider her a friend.” She began sending the girlfriend texts complaining about her boss/ex-boyfriend problems. [Note that she met the girl no earlier than the beginning of March, and everything blew up in the beginning of April, so she barely knew this girl when she began bombarding her with ranting texts]

12. On April 6, 2014, plaintiff’s boss/ex-boyfriend did not say hello to her [i.e. tried to avoid her] at a company party, resulting in [her making] an ugly public scene.

13. Beginning the next day, plaintiff exchanged a series of text messages with the CEO, where he made clear that he wanted her gone from the company [who wouldn't?]. She sent him several texts in which she said she was quitting and stated more than once, in no uncertain terms, that she was not going to sue the company.

14. “In the days that followed,” plaintiff sent the company a resignation letter [by the sound of things, written by a lawyer].

15. “A few weeks later,” she met with a senior executive of IAC, the company’s owner, and, weeping, recounted her side of events. He told her he wasn’t going to do anything for her.

16. On June 30, 2014, she sued the company and IAC.

To summarize, according to her own court papers, reading only slightly between the lines:

In November 2012, the young, inexperienced plaintiff, who had washed out as head marketer for the company, began sleeping with her new boss; got ahead in the company as a result; dumped him in September 2013 and slept around, although she kept stringing him along until February 2014; then acted like a jilted high-school student (despite the fact that she was the one who had dumped him; but not that her ex-boyfriend acted appropriately either), making a disruptive nuisance of herself at the company, including trying to enlist the CEO’s girlfriend (a complete stranger to herself) in her battle against her boss/ex-boyfriend; all culminating less than two months after the final break-up in her screaming, unprovoked, public outburst that ruined a company party.

Now the hysterical, vindictive, immature ex-girlfriend is suing over the tawdry break-up of her short-lived love (?) affair. Instead of her lawsuit making her the object of ridicule and scorn, Slate treats it as a “bombshell” revelation of “sexual harassment” and “misogyny,” and she is probably going to collect a large sum of money from the company. Well… to be more accurate, the company doesn’t make any money and probably never will, so upon the advice of her lawyer, before suing, she first arranged for a meeting with IAC, which is a prosperous company, in order to add them as a deep-pocketed defendant.

Phooey. Forgive me if I laugh.

Hide 51 Comments

51 Comments to "The true story of the Tinder War on Women crisis"

  1. Rose Bird says:

    “Probably going to collect …”

    I doubt it. Nobody’s talking about this yet, but California’s legal infrastructure has crumbled, overworked and underpaid judges having effected a slowdown strike for years now. Any half-bright insurance defense lawyer could zero this case without even much billing, if he wanted to.

  2. Unknown says:

    They’re running an electronic pimping service then have a falling out whereupon they pull out lawyers on each other instead of knives or brass knucks. That’s either progress or degeneration depending on how one wants to look at it.

  3. Anonymous says:

    There is a Web Series called “Local Attractions” that does satires of Tinder dates. It’s pretty funny. Below is a link to an article about the series and also includes a link to one of the videos. Please ignore this if someone else has already posted links to this series.

    Please click here to read article and view video

  4. Rob says:

    It’s Grindr, not Grinder, Steve.

  5. Anthony says:

    The “bro culture” took over tech as soon as it was obvious that tech was just a fancy makeover of the advertising business. Because being the kind of over-self-confident jerk that some women go for is a sign you’re probably pretty good at sales and/or marketing.

  6. Mr. Blank says:

    That’s Slate’s idea of a bombshell case? A mundane lover’s spat of the sort that you can find in literally every other company in America?

    I was expecting something more like Silicon Valley meets “The Wolf of Wall Street.”

  7. Skyislander says:Website

    Our culture.

    Mo Ho’s or Homos.

  8. Whiskey says:Website

    This is why YOUNG women in the workforce is generally a bad idea. Now, matronly 45-55 something women have more on their minds. Their kids, their (second or third) husbands, mortgage payments, etc. So they’ll do their job and deal with their personal life at home on their own time.

    Young women on the other hand are not invisible like matronly 5o somethings. But are pursued and have been since puberty; around 12-15 depending on the girl. All through HS they’ve been able to pull this sort of stunt, through College, and when they hit the workforce they are a disaster.

    I have seen this happen in the tech industry in the mid 2000′s onwards, before it was weird to have any women at all working in the start up culture (where I spent most of the late nineties to recently).

    Back in 1998 for example, one start up had no women at all until just before it went under.

    Will the woman collect from IAC? Don’t know. Maybe. The legal system does not hold women to the same standards as men.

    And lets be clear — the war on Dilbert and Wally is one of anger at Dilber and Wally not being sexy. You don’t see a “war on Hollywood hunks.” NOW and Emily’s List and Salon is not waging feminist jihad on Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp, George Clooney, etc. despite most of the Hollywood hunks rotating through young women like they were baseball draft picks.

  9. Retired says:

    Shame and dignity are quaint anachronisms. The resurfacing of Lewinsky reminds us that they have been for a long time.

  10. carol says:

    Rose Bird: do tell…what is wrong with the legal system there? I do know there was a lot more pro se going on in the courts there before here in flyover. What a pain the ass for judges.

  11. Billare says:

    Officious Intermeddler is a moron. I too read the complaint, and his interpretation is at best tendentious. He gets the entire valence wrong; she was there before Mateen was, has as plausible a claim to cofounding status as anyone, and in fact I suspect many liberals will see fit to find an implicit sexism in that she coordinated the push to coalesce her team behind the app, away from a different, moribund, one they were working on, while Rad’s bro’s comes in from nowhere to vault her to the CMO position. As to the nature of her & Mateen’s relationship: He dresses stylishly, has more than decent looks, and likely possesses some charisma; it’s not implausible that they simply hit it off by sheer proximity, like Bill and Melinda, Sergey and Anne. Of course his new-found status likely played some role, but if that’s all we’re going by, many millions of decent women deserve scarlet letters, don’t you think? If one is honest, I think one cannot help but sympathize with her—no one deserves to be spit on in public, after trying numerous times to extricate oneself via the proper channels from a deteriorating situation.

    In any case, even if my interpretation is not quite right—is this the sort of case you want to be seen championing? It’s not exactly Eich rewrote. I find little evidence of technical skill if that’s the metric—he was in marketing after all just like the complainant—and just a few quick searches makes it clear he was every bit the boor. Calling a specimen much prized words like “slut”, “whore”, inveighing against favored minorities through unencrypted iMessages—are these the marks of a gentleman and a scholar? Be better than the ordinary commentator, those who always seem to find their favored themes even in those cases with the worst facts. It’s only prudent.

  12. Old fogey says:

    This sorry story makes a good argument for rules prohibiting fraternizing between employees of the opposite sex (and nowadays, I guess, gender). Indeed, this story makes a good argument for companies to avoid hiring nubile women at all.

  13. The true story of the Tinder War on Women crisis | Reaction Times says:Website

    […] Source: Steve Sailer […]

  14. eah says:

    Too bad ‘Seinfeld’ is off the air — they could have done something with this. ‘Not that there’s anything right’ with what happened to this poor (does she still have the stock options?) woman.

    As some may have heard, a judge — the same judge who presided over his criminal trial — rejected Zimmerman’s lawsuit against NBC for their egregious, and without a doubt deliberately malicious, editing of the tape of his 911 trial:

    Nelson said that Zimmerman failed to show the network acted with malice, … (and) “voluntarily injected his views into the public controversy surrounding race relations and public safety in Sanford and pursued a course of conduct that ultimately led to the death of Martin and the specific controversy surrounding it,” …

    To which my comment would be: huh?

    So wait and see what happens to this lawsuit, and then do a ‘compare and contrast’ exercise.

  15. Re the Business Week article posted by Color me surprised. The article says that she took the company to 15,000 users, which the article calls “critical mass” and says entitles her to take credit for the company’s later success. Her boss took the company to over 10,000,000 matches per day (actual number of users undisclosed). Any doubt why, when it became clear that one of them had to go, the company chose to fire her and keep him?

  16. volp says:

    This is the real thing.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VBEZrkCT8Q

    Alexander Payne is Neil Simon pretending to be an artist.

    Nebraska is endearing(when not irritating) but has nothing on Osage.

  17. MattinLA says:

    rosebird, you’re wrong. Almost 25% of the cases in the Los Angeles Superior Court are employment cases of one sort or the other. Why? Because they pay off. Woman of this ilk are empowered by our laws, and can earn several years of income with these kinds of claims.

  18. Anonymous says:

    Re Billare’s criticism:

    Maybe I’m a moron, and my interpretation is certainly tendentious, but it’s also a fair reading of her complaint. I’m not “championing” the company’s case; I’m trashing the idea that her petty squabble, which clearly involved gross impropriety by both of these disgusting people, entitles her to money or to the sympathetic attention that she has been getting from the press.

    About the valence that I got wrong: Everyone agrees that she was there before Mateen was. She claims that she had “cofounding status” and claims to have “coordinated the push to coalesce her team behind the app,” but the company denies these claims and they are in no way relevant to the subsequent misbehavior that got her fired. When women cheat on their boyfriends, their boyfriends often call them sluts and whores, which are terms of abuse that are universally understood in that context to refer to such conduct, and also sometimes say very unpleasant things about those women’s past and current bedmates. “Trying numerous times to extricate oneself via the proper channels from a deteriorating situation” is one way of characterizing what she did. “Trying to involve the head of the company in one’s personal quarrels, nagging him to fire one’s ex-boyfriend and trying to recruit his girlfriend to nag him too” is another way.

    As I pointed out, she allegedly got the company to 15,000 users, and he undeniably got it to millions of users, so it seems as if the company’s decision to demote her and hire him was a pretty good one, whether he was Rad’s bro or not. At least it would have been a good decision if he had kept his dick in his pants, she had kept her legs closed and they both had behaved like mature adults when they broke up.

  19. Sorry, I didn’t mean that comment to be anonymous; forgot to type in my name.

    By the way, isn’t Mateen usually a Muslim name? I wouldn’t get terribly upset about one Muslim calling someone a “Muslim pig.” Does anybody know?

  20. Googled it. Rad and Mateen both come from wealthy Iranian Jewish families. Stop the presses! File a lawsuit! A Jew called a Muslim a pig.

  21. Lurker says:

    Rad and Mateen both come from wealthy Iranian Jewish families.

    I’m feeling more enriched already!

  22. Zorro says:

    Re California Courts, you’re both right. The number of judges is right around the same number as 1990, but population and the number of cases is higher. So start to finish, if defense counsel is any good, it takes 3-4 years to get a civil jury trial, no matter how good the case. Then you have an automatic appeal that lasts 2 years.

    Once the jury hears something like this, however, verdicts can be very large. Too bad if Tinder like most startups is broke 6 years after you sue it, then you get nothing. That’s why Hollywood can never stop people from file trading, copyright infringement cases take a long time too, but it is easy to just start a new company. The Napster boys made single digit millions by setting up a network where hundreds of millions of people downloaded billions of songs. Their company went broke, but they kept the money, and now one of them is a facebook billionaire.

  23. anon says:

    Rob says:
    It’s Grindr, not Grinder, Steve.

    Steve Sailer says:
    I must confess to not being an expert.

    —————————————
    Patently transparent that this one liner occurred to Stephen during drafting of the original post.

    Like a naughty school boy, you intentionally put in the misspelling.

  24. Area Man says:

    Re: Zimmerman, being a public figure, and actual malice.

    I’m not David Boies or anything, but I had to do some research into this once and have to believe that this decision will be overturned for misclassifying Zimmerman as a public figure. Happily, public figure status is a question of law, and thus the judge will receive no discretion on appeal of her decision.

    The public figure standard the judge is talking about was created by the Supreme Court back in the 70s in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. The court talks about two kinds of public figures in that decision, all-purpose and limited purpose. (They hint at a third category, an involuntary public figure, but if memory serves, Time, Inc. v. Firestone, in which Time Mag tried to argue that the divorcing/divorced wife of a Firestone was, as a result, a public figure, mostly put the kibosh on that.)

    Anyway, the test for limited purpose public figure is this: “did the person voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront of a particular public controversy in order to influence the resolution of the events involved?”

    Given that Zimmerman had no hand in publicizing the trial of the century, the only way in which I could see him having “voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront” was by pulling the trigger in self-defense. Of course, Martin and Zimmerman were not public figures at that point in time, nor was there a particular public controversy. So I don’t understand what the judge is talking about.

  25. Billare says:

    @Officious My name-calling wasn’t very sporting—I apologize, I was heated. But your interpretation definitely assumes the worst of her. Most importantly, I don’t see how taking minor cases in the most uncharitable way helps fighting against political correctness.

  26. “The article says that she took the company to 15,000 users, which the article calls “critical mass” and says entitles her to take credit for the company’s later success. Her boss took the company to over 10,000,000 matches per day (actual number of users undisclosed). Any doubt why, when it became clear that one of them had to go, the company chose to fire her and keep him?”

    They are both large increments … however, it takes smarts and experience to do real marketing, and I suspect he had it and she did not and perhaps tried to rely on her female wiles rather than running fast (but that is speculation on my part.).

    “I find little evidence of technical skill if that’s the metric—he was in marketing after all just like the complainant—”

    I can see that you still believe in Beta and the 68000.

    “she was there before Mateen was, has as plausible a claim to cofounding status as anyone,”

    It is my understanding that those who are there before the A round are founders. Perhaps I am wrong.

    In any event, I think this exposes, yet again, the problems with young women in startups. Men are simply more productive at these things and you do not want them distracted by thinking with their dicks.

  27. anonymous says:

    check out this CNN column by Doug Gross in which he attempts to write about morals while avoiding all moral language:

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/09/tech/social-media/crime-social-media-psychology/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

  28. Rapparee says:

    All these different terms: “officially dating”, “official girlfriend”, “broken up” but still somehow screwing each other… how the heck do these people keep track of their rights and obligations in the relationship? Oh, wait- they don’t, and that’s exactly why the whole thing melted down into this mess.

    Seriously, it almost makes one want to go back to the days of supervised, publicly-announced courtship, like in “The Quiet Man”, or the Sicilian scenes in “The Godfather”. At least then the rest of us know who is going with whom, what they’re supposed to be doing with each other, and what to do if it ends without a wedding.

  29. Rose Bird says:

    @mattinLA:

    Between, 2010 and 20012, I conducted an experiment in a northern california county. Once a week, I walked around the courthouse looking for a civil jury trial in progress. My total? One (1). Somewhere in that period, I was in the county law library and overheard a conversation between a veteran trial horse and the librarian. The lawyer said that San Francisco judges had stopped accepting new filings altogether. Some kind of a protest over how the state was allocating funds to the courts. I confess I don’t know L.A. (is Tindr an L.A. case?), but the system is a shambles compare to what it was before 1995. Incidentally, it used to be that twice a year NITA would hold well-attended trial practice
    seminars at Boalt Hall. Somewhere around 2005 I noticed that they didn’t take pkace anymore. My guess is firms asked themselves, “what for?”

  30. She got the users to 15,000 – and more importantly, she got that number to include a large proportion of women – in large part by personally visiting sororities and other gathering places for women, talking to individuals and small groups, and persuading them to join. Upon reflection, that was a real accomplishment, but I suspect that they brought in Mateen to replace her because she had plateaued around that number, one-on-one sales being a much different skill than mass marketing.

    If promises were made to her in anticipation or recognition of her accomplishment, the company must honor them. In view of the fact that breach of contract is not one of the causes of action recited in her complaint, I suspect that didn’t get any binding commitments. Another case of a naive young person being outmaneuvered (not to say swindled) in an internet startup by people more sophisticated in the law?

  31. notsaying says:

    After I read this one, you lost me:

    “10. At various unspecified times, Plaintiff’s boss (and now ex-boyfriend) accused her angrily of screwing around with other men [since she never denies this in her complaint, we can assume it is true], being a slut and a whore and a gold digger [which doesn't seem like an unfair inference on his part], both to her face and in emails and texts, and said nasty things about her to other people, including people at work. Plaintiff and her boss had at least one loud argument in the company’s offices.”

    It looks like it was the Boss man that introduced the private part of their relationship into the workplace. It also came to me that all that breaking up and making up that was described as being done by the Woman was also done by the Man.

    I see no way to know if his accusations were true or not. What evidence do anybody here have?

    The Man was suspended. IAC thought it saw smoke and is looking for the fire. Here is what they said to USAtoday:

    “”Immediately upon receipt of the allegations contained in Ms. Wolfe’s complaint, Mr. Mateen was suspended pending an ongoing internal investigation,” IAC said in an emailed statement. “Through that process, it has become clear that Mr. Mateen sent private messages to Ms. Wolfe containing inappropriate content. We unequivocally condemn these messages, but believe that Ms. Wolfe’s allegations with respect to Tinder and its management are unfounded.”

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/06/30/tinder-sexual-harassment/11812153/

    This story at Huffington Post is also of interest. Some people are backing up Whitney Wolfe on some points, including a writer from Bloomberg, Nick Summers, who did a story on her.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/tinder-whitney-wolfe-sexual-harassment-lawsuit_n_5555660.html

    Story written today by Nick Summers:

    http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-07-02/tinders-forgotten-woman-whitney-wolfe-sexism-and-startup-creation-myths

  32. notsaying says:

    More about accusations against women:

    How many beat up women with bloody faces and broken limbs had untrue accusations like “Slut” or “Whore” or whatever hurled at them by their abuser?

    How many of those accusers had actually cheated on the person they knocking around?

    Thank God most women are not victimized. Not all women are angels.

    But I see no reason to assume that just because a man says something — especially at a workplace — and the woman doesn’t answer back doesn’t mean it’s true.

    At the Huffington Post story I linked to above, there was a copy of a tweet from a woman they were trying to recruit that said:

    “CEO & CMO took some young engs to recruiting dinner, CMO [Justin Mateen], I told CEO I would not want to work for Tinder”

  33. Grindr mentioned by name:

    Social media to blame for rise in STDs:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/07/02/STD-Infection-Rates-Surge-in-California-Due-to-Social-Media

    It has this curious story line:


    The two most affected groups are youths and members of the LGBT community,

    KCRA 3 reports that a recent study by the LGBT center said, “Men who use smart apps such as Grindr are 25% more likely to be affected with gonorrhea and 37% with chlamydia.”

    Ahhh, OK, not all of the LGBT community, just one part of it.

  34. outsider says:Website

    I predict she’ll get a billion dollars and Obama will make every insurance company pay for it.

  35. Anonymous says:

    “It looks like it was the Boss man that introduced the private part of their relationship into the workplace. It also came to me that all that breaking up and making up that was described as being done by the Woman was also done by the Man.”

    It doesn’t look like it was the Boss man. It looks like she claims it was the Boss man, which is not the same thing. We know her one-sided allegations; we haven’t heard his one-sided allegations. In my experience, it’s much more likely that they both argued endlessly all day long, whether they were at home or at the office. Neither of them was remotely capable of detaching from their personal lives and behaving professionally just because they were supposed to be working.

    Of course the breaking up and making up was done by both the woman and the man. My point is not that he isn’t an asshole. It is that she is an asshole too and doesn’t deserve to get a payday from the company because of the insane behavior that the two of them participated in together.

  36. M. La Fey says:

    @anon

    I think Steve’s passive-aggressive “acknowledgement” suggests it was an error rather than a joke. Good to see the spiteful/tetchy moderation feature wasn’t lost in the WordPress upgrade btw.

  37. notsaying says:

    Correction to last paragraph, #37:

    I accidently cut out the three most important words of the quote: “said outrageous things.” The corrected quote is below.

    “CEO & CMO took some young engs to trying to recruit dinner, CMO [Justin Mateen] said outrageous things, I told CEO I would not want to work for Tinder”

  38. Paul Mendez says:

    Given that Zimmerman had no hand in publicizing the trial of the century, the only way in which I could see him having “voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront” was by pulling the trigger in self-defense. Of course, Martin and Zimmerman were not public figures at that point in time, nor was there a particular public controversy. So I don’t understand what the judge is talking about.

    I believe the judge is referring to community organizing activities Zimmerman did before the shooting. For example, protesting police brutality against a homeless man.

  39. Anonymous says:

    @Paul Mendez

    Given that Zimmerman had no hand in publicizing the trial of the century, the only way in which I could see him having “voluntarily thrust himself to the forefront” was by pulling the trigger in self-defense. Of course, Martin and Zimmerman were not public figures at that point in time, nor was there a particular public controversy. So I don’t understand what the judge is talking about.

    I believe the judge is referring to community organizing activities Zimmerman did before the shooting. For example, protesting police brutality against a homeless man.

  40. ray says:

    It’s been open season on middle/lower class males for decades. . . schools, employment, family, churches. . . but especially in the predatory legal systems.

    The old savannahs are exhausted; fresh kill must be found for the Devouring Pack — the tekkie ‘nerds’, the insulated-obsessives of US electo-infrastructure, and the WM corp execs and rich who previously were shielded by money and law firms. So, everybody left, pretty much, except the real power-elite.

    Cheers.

  41. skekze says:

    @Billare

    Your word-a-day dictionary is going to run out and then you’ll have to regurgitate or ‘puke’ the same dribble back up. Buy another, it’s only prudent.

  42. skekze says:

    @outsider

    Obama!!! Walmart food has eaten your brain. Nothing left but Ho-Ho’s and Ring Ding’s in there.

  43. Anonymous says:

    @Billare

    Courts are very reluctant to decide that a company did a merit promotion wrong. Unless she can prove that she was doing well in the CMO role, thre won’t be any problem over the decision to install another individual over her. He doesn’t have to have succeeded in the role for the decision to be judged reasonable or at least non-actionable.

    If she wanted to sue over being removed as co-founder she was free to do so at the time. She seems to have acquiesced. I guess it was OK. There’s no evidence of sexism involved there.

  44. Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by Steve Sailer, at whim.


Remember My Information 

Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
Subscribe to All iSteve Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Not What Tom Jefferson Had in Mind
ABC's Epic Steel-cage Smackdown
What the facts tell us about a taboo subject
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?