[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.