Ex-employee sues Specialized, alleges sexual harassment

[jemdet]

Originally Posted by Mikej

You can never do it right. Btw, Spesh makes the majority of its bikes in Taiwan.

Noted, thank you. Forgot about Merida.

[adub]

Originally Posted by jemdet

Oh, it’s one of the people I was referring to. My implication is that they drive down production costs by selling products they don’t make and charge wildly inflated prices for them.

Since we’re making bad faith arguments, how about the fact that they claimed that their aggressive litigation of Canadian coffee shops was in response to a culture of inferior Chinese counterfeiting? Am I doing this right?

If you were to tone down the rhetoric, this is how business works! Marking up a product and/or service greater than your cost. It's really simple, if S or any company makes a trash product, or the mark-up is more than their intended market will accept they will fail.

And the Canadian example was a small, boutique bike shop not a coffee shop. Obviously a bad move by S, customers and the public took notice and Specialized corrected their mistake. This is an example of how a free market works!

[NHAero]

I know nothing about Specialized as a company. I do know that in many large organizations HR is an arm of management and can't be relied upon to keep confidentiality or advocate for the employee bringing a complaint. I also know that large companies often decide to do exactly what someone said upthread, pay a settlement, get an NDA, and move on, even if the complaint is baseless.

Many years ago my sister, a grad of MIT and Harvard B School, was high up in a very large company in CA, I think she was head of strategic planning. Her secretary resented working for a woman, and frequently didn't take on tasks my sister assigned her, choosing instead to do things like Christmas shopping for a male boss who was peer to my sister. My sister brought this up in reviews of this worker but nothing changed. She did however keep detailed records of the insubordination and went to get the woman fired. She sued. Usually the result was a year's salary settlement and arriverderci. My sister brought her records out for the woman's lawyer and the suit vanished. The lawyer knew that if the company went to court, he'd lose and since he worked on a 1/3 of settlement arrangement, he wouldn't get paid.

So it can happen on both ends of the spectrum. An employee can be abused and harassed, or they can be a crappy employee gaming the system. We don't know from where we sit.

For excellent treatment of the former situation, I recommend the two books on Harvey Weinstein, one by Ronan Farrow, and the other by two NYTimes journalists. Farrow's book is particularly good at painting the picture of how top management at NBC squelched his story (he eventually published in print, at the New Yorker, scooped by a few days by the Times) and how Weinstein's lawyers intimidated witnesses and survivors - Lisa Bloom in particular comes across as a sleaze in both books. And if you find these books interesting, Bad Blood, about Theranos, the scamming blood testing company led by Elizabeth Holmes, is more of the same, and is a page-turner to boot. The high profile law firm Boies Schiller figures for the bad guys in both cases.

[glepore]

Originally Posted by Cantdog

It’s surprising how many folks here don’t understand power dynamics or assume the justice system is some magical place where the ‘truth’ always emerges.

As to the justice system, agreed, but it beats the crap out of simply relying on someones allegations.

[jemdet]

Originally Posted by adub

If you were to tone down the rhetoric, this is how business works! Marking up a product and/or service greater than your cost. It's really simple, if S or any company makes a trash product, or the mark-up is more than their intended market will accept they will fail.

And the Canadian example was a small, boutique bike shop not a coffee shop. Obviously a bad move by S, customers and the public took notice and Specialized corrected their mistake. This is an example of how a free market works!

Easy there. I’m not expecting anyone to sell anything at a loss. I also understand that they are selling a luxury good. This isn’t baby formula. I was noting how quickly the white knights (almost assuredly men) came out to defend Specialized. A company with a history of aggressive litigation that makes its bread by creating and obsolete-ing outsourced products. This process should play out, but targeting the woman as an opportunist at this point is unfair. She likely ended or damaged her career in the business.

There is more to business than the end product. Apple, Walmart, and Amazon are all wildly successful companies with terrible labor records. We can hope for something better than that.

RE: Cafe Roubaix, you are right. I thought that they were a bike-forward cafe based on the name.

[fiamme red]

Those of you who predicted that this would be settled out of court were correct.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...e#.YACPeehKi71

On Wednesday Parenti notified the court that she was terminating the case. A Specialized executive said it was by mutual agreement.

"This case has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of both parties," said Sam Benedict, Specialized's global leader in the mountain category...

[mg2ride]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

Those of you who predicted that this would be settled out of court were correct.

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...e#.YACPeehKi71

"The answer to all your questions is: Money."
Don Ohlmeyer

Clearly it is all she ever wanted. #metoo

[akelman]

Originally Posted by mg2ride

Clearly it is all she ever wanted. #metoo

You may be right. But maybe not. There are many, many reasons that people settle these kinds of suits, including the realization that squaring off with a major corporation often means years of litigation, personal ugliness, and massive expense. Regardless, your use of the hashtag is super gross. You made what was already a pretty lousy thread significantly worse.

[prototoast]

Originally Posted by mg2ride

"The answer to all your questions is: Money."
Don Ohlmeyer

Clearly it is all she ever wanted. #metoo

It was a civil suit alleging employment discrimination--of course it was about money, but that doesn't mean she wasn't legally entitled to that money. Settlements aren't a bad thing, especially if she got all she would have hoped to get from a trial. Plus, trials are expensive, stressful, and often take years to play out.

I previously worked for several years in a litigation consulting firm, and no once did I have a case go to trial. That's life, and we had a lot of happy clients.

I cannot speak to the merits of the underlying legal issues, but one should not presume that justice wasn't done just because the case was settled before trial.

[RoosterCogset]

Originally Posted by prototoast

It was a civil suit alleging employment discrimination--of course it was about money, but that doesn't mean she wasn't legally entitled to that money. Settlements aren't a bad thing, especially if she got all she would have hoped to get from a trial. Plus, trials are expensive, stressful, and often take years to play out.

I previously worked for several years in a litigation consulting firm, and no once did I have a case go to trial. That's life, and we had a lot of happy clients.

I cannot speak to the merits of the underlying legal issues, but one should not presume that justice wasn't done just because the case was settled before trial.

No no no. The ideal is that it's supposed to play out like a Grisham movie -- for example "The Rainmaker". The plaintiff is suing for justice and to raise public awareness, and when they win their $50 million case, they give it all to charity because they don't want such tainted funds.

[berserk87]

Originally Posted by mg2ride

+1 Grown Ass adults need to learn to deal with problems as they happen not sometime in the future when it's more beneficial.

That's easy to agree with, but how do we know that the plaintiff didn't try and deal with these things prior to the lawsuit? She could have, before the suit, and we would not have any way of knowing.

[Hellgate]

Originally Posted by fiamme red

Those of you who predicted that this would be settled out of court were correct.



https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...e#.YACPeehKi71

Spot on. It's way cheaper and less painful to cut a check, sign an NDA and make the problem go away.

So many times cases like these are He said, She said. So who knows?

[jamesdak]

Originally Posted by Hellgate

So many times cases like these are He said, She said. So who knows?

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by Hellgate

Spot on. It's way cheaper and less painful to cut a check, sign an NDA and make the problem go away.

I think you'll find that most cases (both civil and criminal) are settled without going to court. It's just easier all around, and saves everybody a lot of time, money and resources.

Was it about money? Well, our civil law system basically boils down compensation to a monetary value, so regardless of the motivation, it ends up as money, regardless of what the plaintiff was actually seeking. Afterall, the courts can't force defendants to apologize or to change their ways and become better people/companies. All the legal system is set up to do is force one party to give money to another party.

Originally Posted by Hellgate

So many times cases like these are He said, She said. So who knows?

Well, since the Specialized ended up paying out, they must have thought there was enough behind the case that paying would be cheaper (and less risky) then going to trial. Which means there may well have been a bit more than a simple, "He said," "She said". But we'll probably never know, since it is likely that the plaintiff was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of the settlement (which would further make one ask whether there was something worth paying to not be disclosed).

[Hellgate]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

I think you'll find that most cases (both civil and criminal) are settled without going to court. It's just easier all around, and saves everybody a lot of time, money and resources.



Was it about money? Well, our civil law system basically boils down compensation to a monetary value, so regardless of the motivation, it ends up as money, regardless of what the plaintiff was actually seeking. Afterall, the courts can't force defendants to apologize or to change their ways and become better people/companies. All the legal system is set up to do is force one party to give money to another party.









Well, since the Specialized ended up paying out, they must have thought there was enough behind the case that paying would be cheaper (and less risky) then going to trial. Which means there may well have been a bit more than a simple, "He said," "She said". But we'll probably never know, since it is likely that the plaintiff was required to sign a non-disclosure agreement as part of the settlement (which would further make one ask whether there was something worth paying to not be disclosed).

Could be or not.

Many times we cut a check because it wasn't worth the time or bother.

Most people thing things are settled for millions. It's the opposite. People will accept well below 6 figures and a happy.

I'm under an NDA and what I asked of the company was readily paid. It all depends on the value proposition to both parties.

It would be interesting to see the actual documents, not what you as filed, but what the employee claimed and their manager documented.

The truth is often in the middle.

In this case we will never know. Well, except for The Shadow!