"Sex ring"? What does that even mean?
A company exec liked sex, was likely unfaithful towards his wife and was also likely violating company policy by having sex with subordinates. Why should this matter to anyone beyond his wife and his employer? It's nobody else's business.
Three days before getting married and two weeks before she was going to give birth to his child he asked her to sign a pre-nup. He suggested she use an "independent" lawyer - and recommended the same attorney who had represented HIM in previous divorce proceedings. They then allegedly didn't disclose all his assets (so the decision to waive an interest would be informed) and her attorney they claim was actually working for Rubin and knew of the fact that he had a history of cheating and a bunch of other stuff given his past work on the divorce much less how much the attorney might value his relationship with Rubin (rich guy / senior at google). No conflict waiver was even prepared or signed.
The sex ring claims come from the allegation that Rubin procured the services of women to have sex with other men.
Plenty of other unpleasant claims.
This all in the context of a marriage where he has made promises to someone.
As to who might mind or be interested?
The employees he supervised might mind - especially since he allegedly pressured them into sexual relationships while simultaneously having lots of other sex. Crappy work environment and disease risks.
The public might mind. A poor black guy running a sex ring might end up in significant criminal trouble. A white guy working for google get's paid $80 million by google and no chance of criminal action.
These tech execs are masters of the universe in their areas. The tone at the top of a company absolutely filters down into their product approach and adherence to an ethical framework. Look at decisions around user controls in Android under Andy (terrible) vs iPhone (better). Are these necessarily linked? Maybe not - but you do tend to see a tone filter through a crazy number of places in various ways. So the public might like to know if the folks running the show are total amoral bastards.
The list goes on.
I hope she takes him to the cleaners.
Additional public interest in these situations is the special casing for these guys - behavior that no one else could get away with.
>The tone at the top of a company absolutely filters down into their product approach and adherence to an ethical framework.
You can say that again. Sergey Brin's mistress Amanda Rosenberg was the marketing manager for Google Glass, and that sure had a douchey entitled nepotistic oleaginous product approach and ethical framework.
We don't know what exactly happened. They can work their problems out between them or in a court room. Reading allegations and passing judgement on people that we don't know should be reserved for tabloid readers.
> ..you do tend to see a tone filter through a crazy number of places in various ways. So the public might like to know if the folks running the show are total amoral bastards.
I suspect that this goes without saying. Don't expect monopolistic, profit-driven enterprises to be operating under any sort of "morality", because they pretty much aren't. This is just as true of iPhone as Android or whatever.
That is extremely far from the case. These biases are in the eye of the beholder. People with opposite feelings about Google (or whatever the corp of the moment is) see exactly the opposite bias.
Well, the complaint is by his "soon to be ex" [sic] wife. And I imagine that the people Rubin was supposed to fairly manage might also have some objections to the whole thing. It's not just any violation of "company policy", it's a pretty blatant breach of basic professional ethics.
I think the most pressing detail of the additional reveal is that not only was this exec paid $90 million for sexually harassing female employees, he also went on to try to avoid having to give his wife her share of the money. It's the mistreating and disrespecting women in your life twofer.
