Slashdot Mirror


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

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."

14 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 Drethon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      On the other hand, men I've worked with seem convinced that they should get paid far more for doing minimal work of questionable quality. When they aren't promoted for this work they cause a big stink, complaining about how they are not treated like they deserve.

      The women I've worked with are usually quietly competent. For the most part they weren't brilliant but they weren't idiots either. If I want to point out the biggest idiots around my workplace it is usually a man.

    3. 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.

    4. Re:This is exactly why you don't hire women... by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Funny

      They will distort reality to entitle themselves to whatever the fuck they want

      And we let them. What; never been in a relationship?!

    5. 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 Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Incorrect. I know quite a few women coders. I even know a few really excellent coders who are female. They are not common, but any really excellent coder isn't common either..

  3. Re:here we go again by computational+super · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Well, I've never seen anybody suggest why "systemic sexism" has been so massively successful in keeping the supposed hordes of "qualified women coders" out of programming, but failed so miserably in keeping them out of sales, marketing, law, medicine, journalism, finance, government and education. Especially when you factor in the fact that anything that even vaguely looks like systemic sexism gets you fired and blackballed immediately with no warning or review and we've been bending over backwards to put anti-systemic-sexism programs in place for at least thirty years, the power of the systemic sexism in tech is really a wonder to behold.

    --
    Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
  4. Never worked there, but... by jcr · · Score: 4, Interesting

    From what I've heard, they have a toxic culture that makes life miserable for most of them, not just women.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  5. Re: here we go again by Entrope · · Score: 3, Interesting
  6. White Male Dominance? Microsoft? LOL. by FuegoFuerte · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Really, who comes up with this drivel?

    Has anyone noticed that the CEO is not a white male? How about the top HR person? Most of management? Microsoft is FAR from being a place where white male dominance is a thing. In fact, on the team I was on for several years, it was commonly observed that the best way to not get a promotion was to be white. It didn't really matter if you were a white male or white female, you were probably getting a mediocre to poor review no matter what you had done, so that someone the same race as the director could get the promotion. If you were a female from the same part of the world and were sufficiently subservient, you might also get a promotion, but us uppity white folk were last in line (in addition to being last to leave the building every night).

    There are a lot of problems with the culture of Microsoft, and racism *is* one of them, but it's certainly not white-dominant racism. The biggest difference is, as a white male, I don't have a voice if I try to claim discrimination. My recourse is pretty much limited to either "shut up and deal with it" or "find a better company to work for." So, after years of the first option, I finally took the second option. That's white male privilege at work right there... "you're a white male, so you have the privilege to shut up and take it or get the hell out."

  7. 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.

  8. 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).

  9. 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});