A Difficult Situation • Hacker News Board

Re: A Difficult Situation

#81

Post by enjo » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:48 PM UTC

Proleps wrote: post #64

nilkn wrote: post #26

Even if I agree with the decision, this is incredibly hard to read. I hate to see someone lose their job over something like this. Yet I can't disagree with anything he wrote. I personally hope she will learn from this and another company will give her a new chance. The odds of that are slim given how big this has become--it's front-paging repeatedly on HN and /r/programming. But I'd hate to see her whole career ruin…

According to this article[1] this was not a single mistake, but a pattern of how she handles things. [1] https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

That blog post is the single most reasonable thing I've read on the entire subject. Good on the author.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#82

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

mathrawka wrote: post #8

rdl wrote: post #3

This is the most reasonable statement I've seen so far in this whole fiasco. It's a shame he took so long to post it; it should have been the first SendGrid comment this morning.

I believe that it is the most reasonable statement because he took time to look over the entire situation and gauge it properly.

[deleted]

Re: A Difficult Situation

#83

Post by _delirium » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

X-Istence wrote: post #67

_delirium wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be weird to fire someone over other people's criminal activity. That reason would be akin to what Eugene Volokh has referred to as the "heckler's veto": when you e.g. cancel a controversial speech because thuggish opponents have threatened to cause trouble (call in fake bomb threats, etc.), and you blame the speaker for having drawn the thuggish behavior, rather than the people actually engaged in criminal a…

Except that she caused the criminal activity to happen because of the way she acted, and it is now costing the business money hand over fist. It gets expensive fast.

No, the criminals caused the criminal activity. If I publish a book, and you engage in criminal retaliation against my publisher for having published it, I am not the person causing crime. Not even if your excuse was that you really hated the book. And it is no credit to the publisher if they give in to the thugs.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#84

Post by guan » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

niggler wrote: post #40

forrestthewoods wrote: post #19

I have little to no knowledge of laws in this area. However my gut tells me that Sendgrid is opening themselves up to a hell of a lawsuit. Can anyone who actually does know about such matters comment?

With most firms, when you join you are required to sign an agreement. In that agreement, usually it is stated that you agree to comply to a certain employee handbook or standards of conduct. If she violated the standards of conduct, since employment is conditional on compliance, they can fire her and will most likely win any lawsuit on the matter unless a court deems that the standards themselves are illegal.

Most private sector employees in the US are employed at will, which means that they can be fired for any reason or for no reason. There’s a specific set of reasons that you can’t fire an employee for, including some kinds of discrimination (race, sex, religion, and a few other categories). You don’t necessarily need to violate an employee handbook, although if there is a risk that the employer is accused of discrimination, a violation of company rules could help the employer in case there’s a lawsuit.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#85

Post by jerrya » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

jlgreco wrote: post #74

jerrya wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I consider that to be fluff and nonsense. 48 hours is not the right interval to be making that judgment. And firing her in response to correct the situation was about the worse and most extreme of actions. (And please note, I think Richards made a mistake and showed terrible judgment.)

In the sense that you don't think it was a valid conclusion, or in the sense that given that conclusion, it was a nonsense reason to fire her? This aspect of the situation seems exceedingly clear to me.

I don't think it was a valid conclusion, and I think the CEO had other actions he could take that would be better for everyone involved.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#86

Post by onemorepassword » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

I'm still missing something.

Although it's obviously the right conclusion that she can no longer function a evangelist, I find it hard to believe that she now has zero value for the company. You don't completely discard a previously valued employee over one fuck-up. Unless either that person is utterly useless in any other capacity, there is previous history or they are completely unwilling to accept that they made a mistake.

But even in those cases you would normally give someone the option to resign. Or the customary "mutual decision to part ways".

Re: A Difficult Situation

#87

Post by haydenj0nes » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

courtewing wrote: post #73

forrestthewoods wrote: post #19

I have little to no knowledge of laws in this area. However my gut tells me that Sendgrid is opening themselves up to a hell of a lawsuit. Can anyone who actually does know about such matters comment?

What in particular do you think makes them vulnerable to a lawsuit? I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in the US, it is legal to fire most non-contract employees at any time, without any notice, and for pretty much any reason (or even lack of a reason) other than outright discrimination based on nationality/gender/religion/etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment and specifically the "Sta…

This is totally correct. I actually really love at-will from both points of view because it promotes freedom for all parties involved. Hate your job? Quit. Hate your employee? Fuck 'em, terminate them.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#88

Post by milesskorpen » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:50 PM UTC

peripetylabs wrote: post #30

It is never appropriate to distribute photographs of people without their permission, in any context. I think SendGrid is justified in their decision.

That's ridiculous. Not only is it completely legal (assuming the people don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy), it's enormously common. Half the photographs on Twitter would violate the social rule you're suggesting.

Re: A Difficult Situation

#89

Post by shock-value » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:50 PM UTC

onemorepassword wrote: post #86

I'm still missing something. Although it's obviously the right conclusion that she can no longer function a evangelist, I find it hard to believe that she now has zero value for the company. You don't completely discard a previously valued employee over one fuck-up. Unless either that person is utterly useless in any other capacity, there is previous history or they are completely unwilling to accept that they made a…

Maybe they did, and she refused?

Re: A Difficult Situation

#90

Post by itafroma » Thu, Mar 21, 2013, 10:50 PM UTC

makeramen wrote: post #57

forrestthewoods wrote: post #19

I have little to no knowledge of laws in this area. However my gut tells me that Sendgrid is opening themselves up to a hell of a lawsuit. Can anyone who actually does know about such matters comment?

Why do you think this? Most employment in California (at least from my personal experience) is "at-will". Either party can terminate at any time with no notice and with no cause. Also in this case the reasons have nothing to do with her gender, but more that she failed at her job at being a developer evangelist.

At will employment does not protect against wrongful termination due to discrimination or retaliation[1]. It's obviously going to be up to a number of lawyers to figure out if there's a strong case for that to be made here.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment#Statutory_ex...