"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."
It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political and ideological arguments. That's an abuse of the site, and we ban accounts that do it, so please don't use HN this way.
The key test is 'primarily'. Commenting occasionally on political topics, among others, is fine. But using the site primarily for political battle is not fine, regardless of which politics you favor. It's destructive of the intended use of the site, which is the gratification of intellectual curiosity. Since we can't have both kinds of site, we have to be careful about this.
I have to reply to your comment, since I don't find his comment to be political at all, more pointing to the semantical point of things being illegal.
Second, I've browsed through the comments and their submitters comments. I find it striking some people's accounts have been banned on the basis of very few comments.
Lastly, the political debate is often the thing I find interesting about the comment threads on HN, Its getting to see the different viewpoints which interests me.
Ofcourse we have to be civil and respectful towards each other, but when we are, I don't see any problem on any topic, how can any topic be destructive to the intended use of the site?
I also have no idea what was wrong with that comment. I wonder if dang replied to the wrong commentator?
I also find it crazy they do this in the threads and not by email, very easy to miss if you don't religiously check your /threads. I got a warning from dang once and he claimed I'd been warned before, which from my perspective I'd never been warned. They have my email.
Well, no. I specifically pointed out that perhaps it should be criminal. I felt it worth noting not for pedantry, but because we have a fair number of readers that might wonder why nobody was being prosecuted if it is indeed a crime.
Illegal is most often, though not always, used in the context of something criminal. The ambiguity is why I commented. I thought I included enough couched language, apparently not.
"Expanding Rights under the “Retaliation” Provision of Title VII. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (the “Act”) prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who has “made a charge, testified, assisted or participated in” any charge of unlawful discrimination under the Act."
Every large organization has instances of this, including Facebook, Google, and the Vatican. It's not right, but it's reality. The only thing is that every other company has done a great job of covering it up, like Amit Singhal who was fired from Google for sexual harrassment, but no one knew that before he joined Uber.
You're right that, statistically speaking, the odds of a company facing a sexual harassment problem approaches unity over time.
But this goes off the rails on the next part. On one hand, you have a company presumably following the legal process[1] of getting through a harassment accusation being accused of a "cover up" in order to implicitly draw an equivalence with a company that apparently had a policy of shielding specific employees from harassment claims.
[1] I have no first-hand knowledge of the situation, but haven't seen any suggestions of impropriety.
According to multiple sources and internal notes read to me, after discussing the claims of an alleged encounter between Singhal and a female employee first with former Google HR head Laszlo Bock and also Google CEO Sundar Pichai in late 2015, he denied those claims at the time. He also apparently stated a number of times that there were two sides to every story.
A former Google employee I spoke to has described the search giant’s HR as “a nasty mess.” They are not alone. Monday afternoon, former Google engineer Kelly Ellis shared some of her own experiences with at the company in light of the news surrounding Singhal’s departure. Ellis previously tweeted about sexual harassment she faced at Google back in 2015.
Sounds eerily familiar. My point being the exact same as what I said. Uber isn't right for letting this happen, but companies like Google have allowed this to happen, you just don't hear about it.
That said, your bias against Uber is blinding you.
It is illegal.