◄►Bookmark◄❌►▲ ▼Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
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.