Slashdot Mirror


Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer Led Illegal Purge of Male Employees, Lawsuit Charges (mercurynews.com)

A prominent local media executive fired from Yahoo last year has filed a lawsuit accusing CEO Marissa Mayer of leading a campaign to purge male employees. "Mayer encouraged and fostered the use of (an employee performance-rating system) to accommodate management's subjective biases and personal opinions, to the detriment of Yahoo's male employees," said the suit by Scott Ard filed this week in federal district court in San Jose. From a MercuryNews article: Ard, who worked for Yahoo for 3 and a half years until January 2015, is now editor-in-chief of the Silicon Valley Business Journal. His lawsuit also claims that Yahoo illegally fired large numbers of workers ousted under a performance-rating system imposed by Mayer. That allegation was not tied to gender. Yahoo spokeswoman Carolyn Clark said Yahoo couldn't comment on pending litigation, but she defended the company's performance-review process, which she said was guided by "fairness." "Our performance-review process was developed to allow employees at all levels of the company to receive meaningful, regular and actionable feedback from others," Clark said. "We believe this process allows our team to develop and do their best work. Our performance-review process also allows for high performers to engage in increasingly larger opportunities at our company, as well as for low performers to be transitioned out."

10 of 566 comments (clear)

  1. Typo in the summary? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Informative

    The title says it was a "male purge" but also says "That allegation was not tied to gender." Reading the article it says women were less than 20% of the chief editors and within 18 months it was 80%. The main plaintiff does not actually single out Mayer but another editor Megan Liberman. Also the summary fails to mention that this lawsuit was about Yahoo News not Yahoo overall.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  2. Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair by slew · · Score: 1, Informative

    This might be true, but I doubt anyone could have saved Yahoo. I think the best thing would have been a temporary surge in the stock price so some investors might get rich, but nothing more. And this is what happened.

    The sad thing is that Yahoo search still sucks compared to Google search. This, at least, I expected Marissa Mayer to fixed. Regardless, I think Yahoo would have failed anyway.

    FYI: Since 2009, Yahoo search has been powered by Bing (MSFT)...
    Bing/Yahoo is pretty good now for non-obscure stuff (for obscure tech stuff Google is still way better), but I'm guessing in your mind, the only thing to "fix" it compared to Google search is for Yahoo to roll back the clock to 2004 when Yahoo search was actually powered by Google.

  3. Re:Cue the feminists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Cue the butt-hurt misogynists to immediately start making strawman arguments about what feminists are supposedly going to do.

    Oh, wait, no need to cue that. It started with the first goddamn post.

  4. Re:Cue the feminists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are people who wake up every day and hate well off white men simply because they're well off white men with no effort to understand the point of how they got to be where they were.

    Many if not most of those got where they are largely because were born into a household headed by another well-off white man.

  5. Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hillary didn't need the superdelegates to win; she had enough votes and delegates to win without them. It's true that the DNC rigged things, along with the mainstream media (esp. WaPo) spinning things in her favor as much as possible, but in the end, it was the Democratic voters who picked her. And unlike the GOP side where the vote was badly split among SO many candidates, allowing Trump to win with a minority of votes, the Dem side didn't have this: O'Malley, Chafffee and Webb barely got any votes at all and two of those dropped out very early on.

    Basically, in this election the GOP proved that it's incompetent at getting their establishment pick selected, and the DNC proved that they're masters of it. But still, the ultimate responsibility on the Democrat side (NOT the Republican side) is with the voters themselves. *They* made the choice for Hillary.

    (The same is not true on the Republican side; the voters there are not responsible, because of the first-past-the-post voting system, and the fact that Trump only got a minority of votes. The nomination of Trump really shows that FPTP voting systems should be banned everywhere, and anyone who thinks they're a good system should be summarily executed so that their stupidity does not spread.)

  6. Re:Only one explanation by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Informative

    You're a gay Trump supporter?

    Why wouldn't he be? Whether or not Trump personally would enter into a gay marriage, he was in public talking plainly about how happy he was for (his casual acquaintance) Elton John to have married his long-time partner, and that people should be cool with it. At the same time, Hillary Clinton was voicing her support for her husband's signing of a law to prevent such things, and Barack Obama was sticking with his "marriage should be between one man and one woman" position. Trump has created more jobs jumped-on by gay people (in the entertainment, pagent, and hospitality businesses) that Hillary Clinton ever could or would. Why shouldn't a gay person support him? Are gay people supposed to like illegal immigration, higher taxes, more regulation, feckless foreign policy, and a nanny state that makes class and racial tensions WORSE instead of better? Please explain.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  7. Re:Only one explanation by HBI · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually most of the gays I know are Trump supporters in general. Since they generally know where the best food is, where the best bars are, and always seem to be having fun and have way more sex than most people do, one must wonder if they have some insight into this choice as well.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  8. Re:A question for westerners by russotto · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is why tiny teenage girls are super-warriors on film.

    I thought that was so could cast hot 20-something actresses in those roles and put them in tight and revealing clothing.

  9. Re:Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair by elrous0 · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm getting very sick of this SJW/mainstream-media narrative that Donald Trump is some sort of frothing-at-the-mouth madman who's going to start a nuclear war and start sending minorities to concentration camps on his inauguration day.

    Donald Trump is a pompous blowhard asshole. But he's also a fairly left-of-center conservative who is anything but crazy or irrational. He has absolutely no interest in starting any wars or doing anything crazy or stupid while in office. War these days is bad business and Trump isn't likely to to go out of his way to oppress anyone. He's way more Ronald Reagan than Dick Cheney.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  10. Re: Proof her perf evaluations weren't fair by Atomic+Fro · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've never seen that quote before. But as someone who is a small cog in the industry, what she said about the FDA is absolutely true.

    Rising drug costs? The FDA is complicit. Drugs approved without being properly vetted? The FDA is complicit.

    Vaccines are great and everything, but do we really need to require thousands of dollars in vaccines for things like chicken pox before a child can go to public school? It's great that insurance hides this cost for most, but I have seen the other side where people have fallen through the cracks in Medicaid and Obamacare. These poor, both in terms of wealth and luck, people needing to get their five year olds caught up before school needing $1200 for the first round.

    It was $1200 because government required it, not because of free market. Just like Epipen. Just like so many common generic drugs the FDA pulls from the market as being "unsafe" and then a single patented brand medication takes their place at 100x to 1000x the cost.

    Then there is manufacturer collusion where a common drug all of a sudden has "manufacturing" issues and it's not available from any manufacturer. Then in a month or two it's available again, but only from a single source, and yes it's still generic, but at 4x the cost.

    This is mostly hidden from "consumers" because insurance. You are still paying your $4 copay. But the costs on the back end are high. Meaning less money for labor, so long lines and wait times at the pharmacy. Higher costs for the insurers mean higher premiums. So all that anger gets thrown at the pharmacy and the insurers. The guys at the top are laughing all the way to the bank.

    --

    ==================
    Hippie Logger Jock
    ==================