21–30 of 120 posts
It seems to me, that any decent Law firm would have told her not to tweet about it imho. /ianal
It seems to me, that any decent Law firm would have told her not to tweet about it imho. /ianal
However, in this case, it is already largely public and making Uber look the villain is a viable strategy given that Uber likely is the villain.
Umm, okay. I would fully expect this. Ms. Fowler seems to be a large liability for Uber. I don't find it unreasonable that "Uber has a law firm investigating ", if for no other reason than to find what she knew and when she knew it (or something along those lines), were she to sue what are the potential ramifications, et. al. IOW, I'm not going to run in circles over a seven word tweet that could mean about anything.
It's not necessarily a savory practice, nor is it universal, but it is definitely common.
I think it's unfortunate that Fowler has to go through this indignity as well as what she dealt with when she was actually working for Uber. But I'd frankly be surprised if Uber's lawyers weren't investigating her, just in case.
The title of this submission is a strict paraphrasing (despite being in quotes) of an already short tweet, which is pretty meh. The full tweet is: "Uber names/blames me for account deletes, and has a different law firm -not Holders - investigating me. I have hired" "Uber names/blames me for account deletes" is a pretty bold claim, and doesn't feel like a routine investigation.
https://twitter.com/FamousCeleb/status/834567373214539776/ph...
It seems to me, that any decent Law firm would have told her not to tweet about it imho. /ianal
Under other circumstances I'd agree this is poor strategy w/r/t preparing for possible future legal defense. Detail here may be that Fowler may soon find herself gagged from disclosing further details, especially if surviving terms in her employment contract with Uber allow for it.
Not surprising. Depressing, but not at all surprising.
Why is it depressing? The company needs to know where it stands. This tweet could mean anything from her being stalked to legal representatives taking pre-deposition interviews. While it seems pretty cut and dried to me that Uber is in the wrong, don't they have the responsibility and the right to investigate for themselves?
A 2nd firm looking at Fowler specifically would imply a different (addl) strategy--like litigation against her personally, or a PR campaign to smear her.
Is there a way to support Fowler in some way, like contributing to a legal fund?
I had an extended exchange with an Uber employee the other day, in which he steadfastly refused to believe that Uber was going after Fowler after the initial reports of this. Despite countless examples of this kind of behavior in the past, he kept insisting that everything was only "alleged" or "unverified." I'm not sure what kind of cargo cult they have going on over there, but it sure is effective at getting people…
This is still unclear but I certainly agree that it is very worrying. You can bet that we'll be asking tough questions about it on Tuesday.
As an aside, I believe you simply meant "cult" - "cargo cult" is specifically to do with performing actions superficially resembling things that work elsewhere without understanding (or replicating) the why of it. Your accusation, of persisting in believing bizarre things in the face of evidence, is more general.
I had an extended exchange with an Uber employee the other day, in which he steadfastly refused to believe that Uber was going after Fowler after the initial reports of this. Despite countless examples of this kind of behavior in the past, he kept insisting that everything was only "alleged" or "unverified." I'm not sure what kind of cargo cult they have going on over there, but it sure is effective at getting people…