Wording and structure of this article is a bizarre mess, I’m guessing it’s the result of some kind of LLM expansion/template application from some bullet points?
I’m guessing most people here don’t have enough information to be able to comment sensibly on an ongoing legal case either way. I think I’ll flag the article as I can’t see informed insightful debate being possible IMO.
I have no information on this case. My impression, however, is that things like this happen all the time, they just rarely get to court. I know people who’ve experienced pregnancy discrimination, but the kinds of firm I work for have enough OpSec that leaver sabotage isn’t a thing.
If the claims of the second case were true, the bringers of the first case were muppets to do so. Moreover, even if the second case hadn’t been filed, the first case is pretty embarrassing for the claimants.
Why did the company, RTW, sue Jiang in the first place?
Even if there was the "internal damage etc" as alleged, it was already well known that there wasn't any value in the company. So the value of that damage is pretty minimal. What were they hoping to gain?
Given that the other founder was planning to take the remaining money to pivot into something new means that there would possibly still be a claim of that new venture with those shares.
Not sure about the US(?), but in Australia in many cases it would likely be unlawful to discriminate due to pregnancy even if it "impacted her job availability".
An employer cannot discriminate because of a pregnancy. An employer who wishes to sack you because of an illness _must_ first show that they have offered rehabilitating services (e.g. medical physiological professional aid, including alterations to the work place) or offered role changes within the company which have not been able to help.
Not really, why should it be? The government pays for the sick leave after a certain time and the company, small or large, is free to hire temps/substitutes to fill in the gap.
Don’t worry, our government is in the process of eliminating many of those safety nets and social programmes “to incentivise employment”. I have made more than median income for a while, and high income earners like me just got a tax break to “incentivise” is to get and keep a job.
