Support NeoGAF

[ConcealedBlaze]

H

In other Words you cant make a case of this, just claim something is ilegal and thats it

Thats why i say before, she cant make this case unless she was the only women Who Dont have a Raise, and that Dont happen

That's not even remotely what I said. Just because you got a raise doesn't mean there isn't illegal discrimination going on where a protected class is being discriminated against and paid less strictly on the basis of their belonging to that class.

It's also not the only issue raised in the lawsuit. They are also alleging retaliation (as directly reported to her by her managers) for discussing inequality in wages which from my understanding is illegal in California (I'm also not a California attorney, by the way).

I'm not saying the plaintiffs will win or have a good lawsuit. My point was none of us know the facts at issue here other than what the plaintiffs are alleging in their suit.

But people insist that the case should come out the way that matches their biases without 1) knowing the facts or 2) understanding the laws at issue. Again, GAF just swings a certain way so it seems like I'm taking a side when I'm not. Just trying to encourage critical thought (which is probably a losing battle online).

 

[Setsuna Mudou]

That's not even remotely what I said. Just because you got a raise doesn't mean there isn't illegal discrimination going on where a protected class is being discriminated against and paid less strictly on the basis of their belonging to that class.

It's also not the only issue raised in the lawsuit. They are also alleging retaliation (as directly reported to her by her managers) for discussing inequality in wages which from my understanding is illegal in California (I'm also not a California attorney, by the way).

I'm not saying the plaintiffs will win or have a good lawsuit. My point was none of us know the facts at issue here other than what the plaintiffs are alleging in their suit.

But people insist that the case should come out the way that matches their biases without 1) knowing the facts or 2) understanding the laws at issue. Again, GAF just swings a certain way so it seems like I'm taking a side when I'm not. Just trying to encourage critical thought (which is probably a losing battle online).

We don't know all the facts, but what we do know is what she apparently has been claiming, so if anything any version of the facts are played in her favor here.
A 50% salary increase in such short period of time in my experience means this person was probably trying to get a foothold in this job and asked for a salary she recognized was pretty low. She got it, surely must have shown enough competence to stay employed and the employer saw fit to considerably raise her compensation, which is why the high percentage occurred.

In no planet that means this employee is entitled to demand X, Y or Z amount because a different person earns it. Once she starts hard balling the company at that level she should damn well have a potential new employer in the horizon that is willing to at least match her current pay. If that wasn't the case, then that's a pretty piss poor negotiation strategy and will definitely hurt her career.

Rule of thumb, if you're the one unhappy with the deal and start making demands, be ready to leave if they are not met. Negotiating from a position of weakness can only be done with a very non confrontational attitude. Seems like she didn't know better nor had anyone close smart enough to advise her.

 

[Unknown?]

There's really no grounds for this now with how easy sex change surgery is, simply become a man and stop complaining.

 

[Arkangelus0]

But people insist that the case should come out the way that matches their biases without 1) knowing the facts or 2) understanding the laws at issue. Again, GAF just swings a certain way so it seems like I'm taking a side when I'm not. Just trying to encourage critical thought (which is probably a losing battle online).

If you attempt to encourage critical thought, you should have presented a single counter argument, many here presented 1, you just claim we are biased and its ilegal to discriminate, for a lawyer Who cant come with counter argument against our points, speaks very poorly of your abilitys mr lawyer

 

[MrA]

Look purpleward my son, and ye shall find they/them/it/what/jagoff

Also 110k for someone seemingly in their 30s is good even in San Francisco

 

[Filben]

Why are they separating women of color from the rest of the female coworkers in this article?

It's rooted in history. When women began to fight for their rights, it was for white women rights. No one, not even (white) women carred for black women. The latter however got the double tap of discriminating against... once for being black and on top of that for being a woman. They were and are still even more dead in the water than white women who are still priviliged compared to black women simply because they're white. And because of their social standing and 'supremacy' they're more vocal and occupy the discussion for themselves, often ignoring intersectional racism and discrimination. Black women issues are black women issues only; no one openly says that but that's how the feminism movement goes, for many of them without even reckognising it. It is an extension of white supremacy to level with the male counterparts and black women don't help that cause. Women can be racists, too, even without recognising it as such, and some don't want people/women of color on the same level. Many women don't want to conflate women's rights and slavery.

 

[Skifi28]

I should have become a laywer. So much work these days, these (purple haired) weirdos must be responsible for at least ten pointless lawsuits per week. Easy money.

 

[ConcealedBlaze]

If you attempt to encourage critical thought, you should have presented a single counter argument, many here presented 1, you just claim we are biased and its ilegal to discriminate, for a lawyer Who cant come with counter argument against our points, speaks very poorly of your abilitys mr lawyer

I'm not supporting the plaintiff's case here. If you want her side and legal arguments, go read the filing. It's in the article. I'm also not claiming other people are more biased than anyone else (including myself) and I'm not using that word to mean bigoted. I'm using it to mean your opinions are influencing how you think a legal case should turn out, but facts and the law don't care about your feelings at all. Like I have continuously said, if people here were alleging that everything as the plaintiff sets it out proves she should win, I would be saying this same stuff in reverse.

But I'll humor you even though I have no strong feelings one way or another. And again, this is not my field of expertise so if a California employment attorney disagrees with me I'd defer to them. This is just my random musings. The two big arguments I see are 1) she got a good raise and 2) people are sometimes just paid more.

1) It's a decent fact for Niantic because it sounds appealing to potential jurors and I'm sure they'll try to hammer home. But it's heavily undercut by the fact that she was still paid $12k a year less by the end of her time than a white male colleague with less work experience, tenure, and title. The legal question is not whether you're fairly compensated. It's whether your status as a member of a protected class is the reason your employer is paying you less than similarly-situated people outside the class. Getting a raise doesn't help if everyone similarly situated outside the protected class got an even better raise. It's just not an especially pertinent fact for the legal analysis no matter how much you think it should be.

2) Sure. Frequently people are paid more for reasons other than discrimination. It's a fact of working. But that general statement means very little because it doesn't engage with the specific facts here. It's just an anecdotal observation. You're just assuming the facts are favorable to Niantic. So unless you can point to specific reasons others were paid more than her, there's not really anything to rebut here. And you can't. Because we only have the plaintiff's filings. So we don't have the facts that would be detrimental to her case. It's just speculating based on how people want the case to turn out.

 

[ConcealedBlaze]

It's rooted in history. When women began to fight for their rights, it was for white women rights. No one, not even (white) women carred for black women. The latter however got the double tap of discriminating against... once for being black and on top of that for being a woman. They were and are still even more dead in the water than white women who are still priviliged compared to black women simply because they're white. And because of their social standing and 'supremacy' they're more vocal and occupy the discussion for themselves, often ignoring intersectional racism and discrimination. Black women issues are black women issues only; no one openly says that but that's how the feminism movement goes, for many of them without even reckognising it. It is an extension of white supremacy to level with the male counterparts and black women don't help that cause. Women can be racists, too, even without recognising it as such, and some don't want people/women of color on the same level. Many women don't want to conflate women's rights and slavery.

It's also because the plaintiff's suit deals with supposed racial disparities in pay between people of color and similarly-situated white colleagues. It's a rhetorical device used to group two protected classes together to make it sound even worse.

I should have become a laywer. So much work these days, these (purple haired) weirdos must be responsible for at least ten pointless lawsuits per week. Easy money.

Class action cases are almost always paid on contingency. So if you're taking truly pointless cases you'd be a very financially poor lawyer.

 

[K2D]

The game is inherently sexist because men on average are able to walk faster and for a more extended period of time than a woman, hence giving them an unfair advantage in collecting and raising Pokemon. It also extremely discriminates disabled and fat people.

wheres my check kotaku/verge [/spoiler]

Sports are inherently sexist. Biology is inherently sexist. LIFE is inherently sexist. /s

I feel for her situation, and kids in school should really be taught about the "workplace rulebook" 101. I don't think she's on to anything.

 

[bigdad2007]

You see this all the time in support roles for certain industries like entertainment, healthcare, etc.

Just because you are a marketing manager doesn't mean you will make more than a JR engineer or a nurse.

 

[GnomeChimpsky]

The executives in the meeting also allegedly said her job evaluations were affected by her discussing workplace issues with her colleagues and said that she was paid below the range because she had raised concerns with her colleagues. According to the complaint, the employee then "immediately unsubscribed" from the Wolfpack group "in fear that her association with Wolfpack would disadvantage Wolfpack employees or her."

Sounds like a total grifter who got paid what she deserved.

 

[Davevil]

Are we in Ree ????

 

[spookyfish]

The cynic in me sees this and thinks "Oh. Which big company is trying to tank the stock value so they can buy Niantic?"

 

[invisible_face]

Also 110k for someone seemingly in their 30s is good even in San Francisco

It's alright. I would hesitate to call it good, lawsuit aside

 

[MrA]

It's alright. I would hesitate to call it good, lawsuit aside

Man san Francisco is messed, I live like a king with half that salary in my part of the country