lafigueroa

@Agnosticwatermelon: legally it's not if, as Stardock says, it was a company wide message addressing multiple employees, male and female. Sexual harrassment is specifically defined as being harrased because of your sex, which this would not qualify for.

So reading the legal documents it seems she had to drop atleast the majority of her allegations due to witness recanting statements. At this point until I hear another Stardock employee, former or current, cooroberrate her story in some way or fashion, I will refrain from jumping on the Wardell hate train (which is overloaded as it is) without further details coming to light.

I just wanted to say that if everything in this countermotion is true (http://www.scribd.com/doc/105112455/Def-s-Mtn-for-SD

) then the girl herself has her own sexual harrassment claims coming her way. Which, more importantly than anything else, suggests that Stardock has been breeding a very hostile culture in which everybody can and does whatever they want, no matter how uncomfortable it may make others feel (infact that discomfort might even be the point). The real story at hand here isn't the employee who left and sued, it's the 30 or so who choose to remain in celebration of this very hostile culture in which all, men and women alike, are subject to sexist(both kinds), vulgar, and otherwise profane "jokes" and "teasing" in the pursuit of some fantasy rapport that atleast the CEO believes to exist.

EDIT: For clarifiaction, The above assumes both side's motions have some merit. This remains to be proven in the court of law. One or both sides could come out exonerated in this affair yet.

" @Dpower94 said:

" @Red12b said:

" @lafigueroa said:

" Did I just see a thread full of users throw up the diamond? I did, didn't I? "

<>  "

<> "

<> "