[refulgentis]

The thrust of her thread today is that it is shocking how Google dumped her with no warning - it sounds like, instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company, and the culminating event was making demands for the company to meet if she was to stay.

Declining to accept an employee's set of ultimatums, an employee who already engaged in threatening legal action for months and months, is arguably a much clearer framing than "her willingness to assert her rights under the law"

Therefore "recently conspiring a legal battle against Google, while on Google's payroll." is worth sharing, it provides information not present in the limited frame of "her willingness to assert her rights under the law"

[joshuamorton]

> instead, they continued employing her for months and months while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company

This doesn't at all sound like the case. It sounds like the company did something aggressive, she got representation who threatened to sue, and the company backed off, and all of this happened over a year ago and is essentially a closed chapter.

[cirno]

> all of this happened over a year ago and is essentially a closed chapter.

Very credibly threatening to sue your employer with a legal firm, regardless of whether you were in the right to do so, is never a closed chapter. Companies are made of people, and those people are not going to forget something like that. They're going to be waiting for their first chance to get rid of you.

Right or wrong, justified or not, if you threaten your employer with a lawsuit, you need to be looking for a new employer that very same day. The employment relationship is now irrevocably a hostile one.

[refulgentis]

Sorry, dumb question, which part are you disputing? I must be being too literal.

What you called out as "doesn't at all sound like the case": [1: they continued employing her for months and months] [2: while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company]

First paragraph of the email OP posted, which I am defending as worth sharing: "This happened to me last year. [[1]: there has been 11+ months, or months and months, since this occurred and she continued employment] I was in the middle of a potential lawsuit for which Kat Herller and I hired feminist lawyers who threatened to sue Google [[2]: her lawyer was threatening to sure the company]"

[joshuamorton]

"while her lawyer was threatening to sue the company"

My reading is that the situation you're describing is resolved, and has been for quite a while. Thus no lawyer is currently threatening to sue, nor have they for quite a while.

Thus: an employee asserted her rights under the law in the past, and the situation was, apparently, resolved to everyone's pleasure. "recently conspiring a legal battle against Google" is a misrepresentation of that.

[refulgentis]

Gotcha, my post didn't mean to imply that the lawsuit _wasn't_ resolved, just that there was a period in which there was a lawsuit threatened and she was employed. Thank you for the feedback! I've had more negative interactions on here than positive recently, and this was heartening.