[lliamander]

I agree that this a perfectly on-topic post and worthy of discussion (in part because it was well written). I was just countering the claim/insuation that people were flagging the story because of their own prejudice against trans people (or whatever).

> But the silence from Rune, and dialogue suppression tactics by mystery parties honestly just make me more inclined to believe there is at least a grain of truth in the original submission.

Hypothetically, if Rune was in the right and the OP had seriously misrepresented the situation, what would be the right thing for Rune to do?

[pcthrowaway]

They could point out the inaccuracies or misrepresentations. For example, the claim that 20% of the staff were let go, but 100% of the laid off folk were "of historically marginalized groups. Women, people of color, queer folks, and multiple people on disability and even maternity leave"

They could respond with information. Maybe this is a broad enough group and their workforce is unusually diverse, and 90% of their workforce fits that description. If their layoff cohort was remotely representative of their demographics in the first place, this would be fine, but it really doesn't sound like it.

For example, the claim that they laid off people on maternity leave. Did their 20% company-wide layoff comprise 20% of their staff which was on maternity leave (in other words "sure, we laid off 2 people on maternity leave, but another 8 of our employees are actually on maternity leave, and they didn't get laid off").

Or was this overall inaccurate? ("actually our layoff cohort contained groups of people who are underrepresented in tech, but also groups of people who are overrepresented in tech. Protected statuses were not a factor in our layoff decisions").

Perhaps they fucked up and realize they did discriminate based on protected class, and can only dig the hole deeper by responding now.

[lliamander]

> the claim that 20% of the staff were let go, but 100% of the laid off folk were "of historically marginalized groups. Women, people of color, queer folks, and multiple people on disability and even maternity leave"

Even if that claim is true, it's far from sufficient to assert discrimination is at play:

- Disparate impact != discrimination. IIRC, the idea that disparate impact could be penalized without explicit intent to discriminate was a judicial fabrication that contradicts the plain text of the Civil Rights Act.

- There are so many ways one could qualify as belonging to a "historically marginalized group". That's not really unrealistic to think that something like this could happen by chance.

- Sounds like the author's own marginal status wasn't a driving factor in being fired or even a barrier to promotion. If anything it sounds like the problem was retaliation, not discrimination.

- There does appear to be a decent amount of demographic diversity at the leadership level. It doesn't seem likely that they would have a plan to get rid of minority employees simply because of their minority status.

Whether as an individual or a company there plenty of reasons to hold your tongue admist public controversy. That doesn't mean the company is making the right move by being silent, but interpreting that silence as guilt seems unwise.

[gregw2]

When someone is suing you, even wrongly (in your view), responding in public is very rarely the legally recommended appropriate thing to do.

I don’t think there is any compelling argument to be made from Ram’s silence.