Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Three Women Suing Microsoft for Bias Want To Add 8,630 Peers (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

A reader shares a report: A lawsuit accusing Microsoft of discriminating against women in technical and engineering roles is poised to grow a lot bigger if it wins class-action status. With the technology sector awash in challenges to white male dominance, the three women spearheading the case against Microsoft told a Seattle federal judge they want to represent about 8,630 peers who have worked for the company since 2012. The women said their expert consultants have determined that discrimination at the Redmond, Washington-based company cost female employees more than 500 promotions and $100 million to $238 million in pay, according to Oct. 27 court filings. They also accused the software maker of maintaining "an abusive, toxic 'boy's club' atmosphere, where women are ignored, abused, or degraded." Microsoft said it strongly disagrees with the allegations, saying the filings "mischaracterize data and other information."

7 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. This is exactly why you don't hire women... by Roger+Wilcox · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They will distort reality to entitle themselves to whatever the fuck they want, paint you misogynist, and then sue you in a case with worldwide visibility.

    If you had never hired them in the first place, then you wouldn't owe them anything and you wouldn't have to deal with this shit.

    Seriously... you want to be treated like an equal? Take your lumps like the rest of us and stop making a big fucking stink out of the fact that you are a woman.

    1. Re: This is exactly why you don't hire women... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Your comment is asinine. I'm sure there are women who use their gender as an excuse to get ahead while not working hard. However, it is completely unreasonable to use that as grounds to jot hire any women. We shouldn't be so politically correct as to label opinions we don't like as misogynistic or racist, because it's counterproductive in addressing the issues at hand. Your comment, however, truly is misogynistic because it applies the stereotype to all women.

    2. Re:This is exactly why you don't hire women... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the one hand, it is possible that women are being victimized by an unfair bias.

      On the other hand, it is possible that women are seeking special treatment and using bogus claims of bias to get it.

      In my experience, both are probably true. Most people are shitty people, so most employers will act on unfair biases and most employees will demand unreasonable special treatment...both will point at the other's bullshit in order to justify their own.

    3. Re:This is exactly why you don't hire women... by Sasayaki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've worked with some quiet, competent women and some loudmouthed, entitled, idiotic women. But I've also worked with some quiet, competent men and some loudmouthed, entitled, idiotic men.

      I really don't think it's aligned to gender.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
  2. Re:here we go again by Platinumrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That the problem exists and is pervasive, I have no doubts on that score. However, I don't think it's just against women, ethnic or age groups. In short, I think the problem is mainly about cronyism and the boys club. Even talented white males suffer from discrimination there, but that's deem ok because they are white and male. People joke about the pointy haired boss, but it's actually a sign of cronyism.

  3. Surprising math by SlaveToTheGrind · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $238 million for 8630 employees over 5 years comes out to about $5,500/year/employee.

    That's a lot less than I would have expected for an upper limit at this early of a stage in the proceedings, when numbers are typically very optimistic in order to leave headroom for surprises as the case evolves.

    I'd imagine that means their reasonable expectation of what they'll be able to show is quite a bit less than that, and maybe quite a bit less than even the $100 million (about $2,300/year/employee).

  4. Re: here we go again by Pseudonym · · Score: 4, Insightful

    At this point....would YOU hire a woman for most any job, knowing they are likely to be looking for any good reason to sue you and your company?

    If there really was a good reason for an employee or ex-employee to sue me and my company, I'd be far more worried about that possibility.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});