Dozens of Current and Former Dropbox Employees Allege Gender Discrimination (venturebeat.com) 118
More than two dozen Dropbox employees say they've witnessed or experienced gender discrimination at the company, an investigation by news outlet VentureBeat has found. From a report: In December 2020, a source familiar with the matter sent VentureBeat a document containing anonymous interviews with 16 current and former Dropbox employees who allege gender discrimination at the cloud computing company. The report alleging discrimination began circulating internally after its author sent it to Dropbox employees throughout North America on December 9. Compiled by a former Dropbox researcher, the report was not commissioned by Dropbox executives and is strongly contested by the company. "When I first read the email, when the report was sent out, I started crying," Source 1, who said she had experienced discrimination with regard to promotion at Dropbox, told VentureBeat. "I was frustrated and almost livid that so many other people were experiencing it, too. I really hoped that my personal experience was a one-off, and it was jarring and really upsetting to see so many things that could have been my story." The subjects of the report alleging discrimination point to examples such as "changing standards for promotions, unequal compensation, being set back in their careers after maternity leave, and experiencing retribution when they take their cases to HR." The report also detailed instances of alleged harassment and demotion after employees filed a complaint with Dropbox HR or returned to work following maternity leave. Internal communications VentureBeat obtained indicate that more than a dozen Dropbox employees agreed with the report's conclusions.
Promotions (Score:1)
Re:Promotions (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe there's something wrong with the way the company is run and the way people work if 10-12 hour days are the norm. Nobody is 100% productive for even 8 hours, let alone 25-50% more of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe there's something wrong with the way the company is run and the way people work if 10-12 hour days are the norm. Nobody is 100% productive for even 8 hours, let alone 25-50% more of that.
You've never felt like you get more done if you work odd hours? So imagine you're doing that and attending everybody's meeting from 9-5. I tend to think the long hours workers are just doing what they would do during their normal hours if they didn't have to put up with all the overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to know how you measured it. An objective measure of productivity of some work (like my own) is very tough to put a figure on.
I tend to run 10+ hour days at the moment (in my 50s), but that's just because I'm building up a new department. When the right people are in place to delegate to, I'll be doing around 8.. But those 10+ hours are all productive (degrading, yes, but all needing to be done, simply because there isn't time to do stuff another day, it all needs to be done by certain times).
Wh
Would be an unusual, unhealthy company. San Fran (Score:2)
Agreed, that would be an unusual and some would say unhealthy working environment. In the other hand, Dropbox is based in San Francisco. It may be more common in SF than it is where I've lived.
Based on my experience (not data), it *seems* like more men are willing to do that / put up with that in a professional office environment. I'm not, personally. Obviously some women are, some men are. It seems like *on average* women are *more likely* to value a healthy work / life balance. Whether that's good or b
Re: (Score:2)
It seems like *on average* women are *more likely* to value a healthy work / life balance. Whether that's good or bad I guess depends on whether the woman is your boss, your wife, or your employee. I want my boss and my wife to go home at a reasonable time. :)
As a 20 year (male) veteran of working in the Tech Industry, this is one of the reasons why I've generally preferred working on teams with good female representation and/or for female managers. Less drama, better organization, and less expectation of putting in stupid work.
Re: (Score:1)
Merriam Webster (Score:2)
This sounds like bigotry to me, even IF true
From Merriam Webster
Definition of bigotry
1: obstinate or intolerant devotion to one's own opinions and prejudices : the state of mind of a bigot
overcoming his own bigotry
2: acts or beliefs characteristic of a bigot
Definition of bigot
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I don't see any
Re: (Score:1)
That's who the bigot is, the person who is being hateful and intolerant toward the beliefs of others.
Your being naive. By your definition, a person who hates Naz*s is a bigot.
I didn't actually write Merriam Webster (Score:2)
> By your definition
I didn't actually write the Merriam Webster dictionary. So that's not my definition.
The Cambridge dictionary (which I also didn't write) puts it this way:
bigot
noun [ C ] disapproving
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
Being intolerant of other people's views and thinking that only your ideas are valid is THE definition of a bigot; not *my* definition.
If you're upset because you just real
Re: (Score:2)
No you're being disingenuous yet again.
a person who has strong, unreasonable beliefs and who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:
Being intolerant of other people's views and thinking that only your ideas are valid is THE definition of a bigot; not *my* definition.
You're completely ignoring the word "unreasonable" in there, intentionally it seems either you didn't manage to read the first 5 words of what you pasted which seems unlikely or because you are for reaso
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry you think for some reason that all the dictionaries are "pro nahtzee", but the word means what it means. Again, I didn't write the dictionaries. Your issue isn't with anything I wrote, I simply quoted the definition of the word. I didn't write either dictionary.
Re: (Score:2)
Ps, I happen to disagree with your assessment that one has to be "pro-Nahtzee" in order to not be a bigot, by the actual definition of the word bigot.
As I read the definition, a bigot insists that only their ideas are right and hates those who who have a different view. ANY different view. A bigot would say "only may way is right" and treat with contempt anyone who disagrees with them about anything.
Note the distinction between "anyone who disagrees with them" vs "Nahtzee". It seems to me that because I'm
Re: (Score:2)
I'm calling *you* pro Nahtzee, not the dictionary because you are intentionally misreading the dictionary in order to uphold the viewpoint that being anti Nahtzee is bigotry.
The dictionary specifies "unreasonable".
You are either intentionally ignoring the word "unreasonable" in order to clap back at people who have Nahtzees or you are claiming a strong dislike of Nahtzees is "unreasonable". That's a group, I remind you, who tried to exterminate my grandparents (who were fortunately in England) and their rel
Re: (Score:2)
> You are intentionally conflating people who don't accept all other viewpoints with people who vehemently oppose some specific viewpoints.
No sir, as I've already told you, that's what YOU are doing.
Let me copy-paste from the message you replied to since you apparently didn't see it the first time. Please kindly try to read it this time. Otherwise, what you'll be continuing to do is to exhibit this attitude:
I don't give a shit what anyone is saying, I'm not going to listen to what he says, I'm not goin
Re: (Score:2)
No sir, as I've already told you, that's what YOU are doing.
That's a very longwinded way of saying "no u". You could learn a lesson or two in brevity from zoomers.
Let me copy-paste from the message you replied to since you apparently didn't see it the first time.
Well, a copy-paste is convenient because you don't have anything awkward like a link which would actually confirm that was the message, which (and I checked the history of the thread) does not exist. So yeah...
There is a word for people who calls an
Re: (Score:2)
>> Let me copy-paste from the message you replied to since you apparently didn't see it the first time.
> Well, a copy-paste is convenient because you don't have anything awkward like a link which would actually confirm that was the message, which (and I checked the history of the thread) does not exist. So yeah...
Like I said, it's the post you replied to. It's the post you were reading when you clicked "Reply". The link is at the bottom of YOUR message. It's the link that says "parent".
It points
* that's the relevant part of the definitions (Score:2)
By the way of course the sections of the definitions I've quoted again most recently are just the sections relevant to this particular point we're discussing. The full definitions are in my other posts in this thread.
For *this* particular point, I think both dictionaries used the general plurals "beliefs" and "opinions" on purpose. Where Cambridge says:
"who does not like other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life"
I don't think they mean "a particular person who has a different beli
Re: (Score:2)
Well, at least until recently...that's just been US working culture.
IT started back when there were primarily ONLY men in the workforce....and that's what we've been used to as the standard.
This isn't a new paradigm.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is 100% productive for even 8 hours, let alone 25-50% more of that.
On the contrary, I am more productive when I stay late after others have gone home and can work without interruptions.
Of course, that doesn't work if everyone stays late.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe there's something wrong with the way the company is run and the way people work if 10-12 hour days are the norm. Nobody is 100% productive for even 8 hours, let alone 25-50% more of that.
You're spot on. The municipality where I live is trying to reduce police officers' shifts from 12 hours to 10 and the union is freaking out.
The nominal excuse is that it's important for the officers to have more time to decompress (a.k.a. more solid days off). While that may be true, I'm not comfortable with them working 10-hour shifts, let alone 12.
I'm sympathetic that the work is stressful and demanding. If you need to work a 3/4 day week to stay sane, working stupid-long days can't be healthy. D
Re: (Score:2)
Which is terrible, it encourages over working and putting your career before your health. Creates a race to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is terrible, it encourages over working and putting your career before your health. Creates a race to the bottom.
That's how a lot of those highly competitive companies are.
Re: (Score:2)
Best avoided, you can get the same money elsewhere without all the BS.
Re: (Score:2)
It's difficult to earn the same income without doing the extra hours of work. My salary has dropped, noticeably, as I've gotten older and cannot do the same hours, overnight emergency shifts to earn bonuses, or weekend work. Many working women, especially working mothers, have similar or greater limits. And it _obliterates_ career growth for many single mothers.
Re:Promotions (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Promotions (Score:4, Insightful)
There's obviously differences between men and women. I don't understand how that's even controversial? That doesn't mean one gender is superior to another, just that men and women are going to approach certain problems differently.
That's true, but only so far. For most parameters people measure there's a much bigger difference within women or men than the difference between them. That means that it's not really useful to use gender or sex for performance predictions. In the end your statement is a kind of strawman since nobody disagrees with you - the entire idea of "gender" is that there are different categories - but you are bypassing the important question - do they matter here? The whole discussion here, coming as the first discussion on Slashdot, kind of proves the point. Instead of a discussion like "big companies are sometimes bad, how can employees do something"? In fact the first 5 posts are all about this being overblown, which kind of proves that there's some point here.
You see this in software development all the time -- software development tends to be male dominated, where occupations such as social services tend to be female dominated. There's a notion, that there is a gender inequality in the software field, and this is something that needs to be corrected.
That software is male dominated is a very interesting and weird thing. This has been very variable [wikipedia.org] and in many places until the '60s women dominated. Computer programming is mostly a form of communication with language. That's more or less a female stereotype area.
That might be so. Humor me, though -- why aren't these same complaints leveled against other male-dominated occupations such as trash collection or auto repair? I don't see any complaints from feminists about a lack of women in trash collection? Why don't they complain about that?
Don't play coy here. People aren't interested in pushing against discrimination here because these are undesirable, not highly paid jobs and most of the people that care about this strongly care about getting a more equal level of pay to women overall. Pushing women into trash collection isn't seen as a good way to increase their average wage even though it likely would be compared to, for example clothes washing.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe trash collection is a bad example -- but I can say with certainly, I pay my mechanic as much as I pay my attorney.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Women were dominant in the computer field in the 60's because it was considered an extension of "secretarial" work -- ie. using keyboards and patch cables (from the telephone system). This wasn't software development as we unde
Re: (Score:2)
Women were dominant in the computer field in the 60's because it was considered an extension of "secretarial" work -- ie. using keyboards and patch cables (from the telephone system). This wasn't software development as we understand it today. The women in these jobs were doing what we would call "data entry" now.
Not just. Early computer science departments were female dominated in the UK and this was largely because it was seen as an extension of Maths which is still a much more sex balanced area.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There used to be a lot more women in STEM, both study and work. It also varies between countries.
So it can't be generic. Can't be inherent. It has to be cultural. That means the culture is limiting people, stopping them doing what they would freely choose to do without that influence.
What other explanation is there that explains how the observable world is? That's the ultimate test of a theory, right? Does it's predictions match observations.
Re: (Score:2)
There used to be a lot more women in STEM, both study and work
Note: a higher proportion of the people in STEM were women, not that there were more women. There are a lot more women in STEM now than there used to be.
Re: (Score:2)
What other explanation is there that explains how the observable world is? That's the ultimate test of a theory, right? Does it's predictions match observations.
Well, I have some strongly held notions based on evolutionary just-so stories and a poor understanding of psychology which can be morphed to fit any particular datapoint at any one time. Will that do instead?
Re: (Score:2)
You're a sucker if you put in 12 hour days. To quote Tracy Morgan: I never saw a Brinks truck going to a funeral.
Re: (Score:3)
I would not work for a company that required >40 hours per week on a regular basis. Sure, on occasion there might be a crunch, and I have put in 60-hour weeks in the past. But I'd never make it a habit; life's too short for that shit.
Any company that expects >40h/week on a routine basis is abusive.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
> when married couples have children, men work even more
to avoid having to deal with housework
Re: Promotions (Score:2)
"even think it's noble"
What good is nobile when you are dead?
What good is nobile when you become a robot for the company?
What good is noble when you can't get any fucking joy out your life?
We pump kids full of idealistic bullshit when they are young, and this is how they end up falling into these traps.
Bad guys often win, Good guys often get punished and suffer, nature and mankind is cold and cruel, and everyone (in general) is out for themselves.
Fuck nobility, and fuck throwing your life away on bullshit
Re: (Score:2)
Why not 7 hours? Labor laws don't determine how long projects take.
'cos if your boss sees you finish it in 7 hours he'll give you another batch of work. Just joined recently?
Call me when I get to cry publicly. (Score:1)
And knights on shining horses come to save me when I do it.
Instead of being ridiculed, losing all respect, and never being treated like a man ever again, especially by women.
I'd say "boo-hoo", but I'm not allowed to.
Re: (Score:3)
Instead of being ridiculed, losing all respect, and never being treated like a man ever again
What you need is feminism.
Once men and women are allowed to share traits and crying is no longer seen as "girly" and "girly" is not synonymous with "worse than manly" you will be free to do so without ridicule.
, especially by women.
men do not have a monopoly on much of anything, including foolish bigotry.
Maternity leave (Score:5, Insightful)
You mean that after being absent for a year they were passed over for promotions and pay raises in favor of employees who were present for that year?
How dare they, totally unreasonable that employers show preference for employees who actually do work.
For real though, nothing against working mothers, but come on be realistic. You can't take months or years off and expect there to have no effect on your career.
Re:Maternity leave (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean that after being absent for a year
You realize that maternity leave for most US companies is 12 weeks at best. If women are lucky, it is 12 paid weeks. Where do you get 1 year?
How dare they, totally unreasonable that employers show preference for employees who actually do work.
Are you insinuating that women coming off maternity leave do no work.
For real though, nothing against working mothers, but come on be realistic. You can't take months or years off and expect there to have no effect on your career.
It sounds like you did not understand the entire point. They were set back in their entire careers after time off for 12 weeks or so.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How long is 12 weeks, exactly?
3 months, you say?
Can you really skip out on ongoing projects for three months, walk right back in, and be equally as productive and familiar with things, workings, new problems, solutions to previous issues, customers, and (potentially new) management/managers as before you left for a quarter of a year? (In what is considered "a fast-moving technology field"?)
No? I didn't think you deserved that promotion, either.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Within a couple of weeks, or at most a couple of months, you certainly should be caught up. Three months is not that long. Honestly though, what technology field is so "fast-moving" that your knowledge would be out of date in three months? (Maybe virology, but that's only an extremely recent development.) You mostly would have to catch up with what projects are at what stages, and if the documentation isn't utter crap that shouldn't be an issue.
Re: (Score:1)
Capitalism, it's a psychopathic competition. You wanted to have a baby, you wanted a husband, fuck you, they want people married to the corporation, it's psychopathic capitalism.
You whiny high end bitches, do you give ONE FUCK (talking about pregnancy, heh heh) just ONE TINY FUCK about low IQ workers and how they get abso-fucking-lutely ground the fuck under.
Ohhhh poor whiny bitch at tech corporation who actually gets leave, every day is hell for low IQ workers, they can not afford to take any time off, p
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly, it's not like one of your team was hit by a bus or needs urgent cancer treatment. There is time to plan and make sure the workload is covered.
Re: (Score:3)
Can you really skip out on ongoing projects for three months, walk right back in, and be equally as productive and familiar with things, workings, new problems, solutions to previous issues, customers, and (potentially new) management/managers as before you left for a quarter of a year? (In what is considered "a fast-moving technology field"?)
As a matter of fact, yes.
It happens all the time, people do short term assignments, or got transferred to special projects, often longer than 3 months, then went back to their original team and became just as productive as before.
Some went for training, or study. Some people even go travel around the world for a few months, then return to their job, with a fresh mind and fresh ideas.
Not all companies are run by slave-drivers as yours seemed to be.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying women are punished for having a normal biological function?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, nothing wrong with normal biological function...just do it on someone else's dollar.
The employer is paying for work done on their behalf.
Having a kid, is not beneficial directly to the employers bottom line, it gets in the way to getting work done.
They are already having to pay for their time off to have the kid, I think that's enough.
If you do otherwise, then you are in essence penalizing those men and women that stay at
Re: (Score:2)
Great you can clock out for bathroom breaks then.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, as long as the rules apply evenly to everyone.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except that's not true when you don't have a choice, such as when the mother has unilateral decision making authority as to continue or terminate a pregnancy.
I don't think you have talked to many pro-lifers and how firmly held their beliefs are. Your average Catholic (for one example), puts abortion on par with murder. Not just for the mom and the physician, but everyone involved. Drive your pregnant f
Re: (Score:2)
You mean that after being absent for a year they were passed over for promotions and pay raises in favor of employees who were present for that year?
What makes you think that the promotions just stopped for the year they were back? I've heard of instances where 3 or more years down the track you don't get promoted if you take maternity leave. Is that fair? In the eyes of many, it is. Many places will permanently halt the careers of anyone who takes maternity leave, and it doesn't matter how good they are at their job.
True story... (Score:1)
I had a female colleague who I found out had the same hourly rate I did despite being a few years younger.
On paper, we did the same job. She was well-liked by management.
Her work product wasn't even remotely comparable. Sure, she was "doing the same work."
She just wasn't doin
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I worked for a company and they were paying a male colleague even though his work was so bad, everyone else had to cover for him. He was effectively getting paid to hurt the company.
He wasn't even doing the same work.
Paternity leave (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately discrimination after maternity leave is pretty much the standard everywhere. Companies like to make an example out of women who dare to have a life. The only solution in my opinion is for fathers to get the same amount of leave like in some Scandinavian countries.
Re: (Score:3)
And doing that discriminates against men and women that do NOT take time off to have kids.
They are not only doing their jobs, but also having to pick u the slack and do the work the missing mothers (and fathers in your scenario) wou
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone who retires without having had kids is then freeloading off the work of others who actually did do the work of having kids.
Don't take me too literally above; I'm just trying to make a counterpoint
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People will have kids without being paid for it.
They have since the dawn of man....why should we start now?
Those without kids subsidize those with already in plenty of ways...school taxes, child credits already on the books, etc.
There is no need to start NEW taxes and redistribution of wealth.
People will continue to fuck
Re: (Score:2)
You could argue the SS part, but not the 401K...that is purely an investment in the market thing, has nothing to do with future generations.
But look, people will fuck and have kids...that's just biology there, and as such, there is no need to encourage it or "pay" for behavior that people have exhibited since the dawn of man and will continue to do so.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Not Possible (Score:1)
Gender is a myth, therefore gender discrimination is a myth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Would it help if I said the company in question identifies as a non-discriminatory entity? How dare you assume their discriminum.
Re: (Score:1)
Not breaking out the pitchforks yet (Score:5, Informative)
If I've learned one thing in all my years working, it's that most people are drama kings and queens, and when they don't get their way they invent all manner of things that COULD have caused that instead of looking at what they did to lead to this situation.
I've seen real life, actual discrimination, but it's very rare ( and more often women favoring women instead of the dominant narrative ).
So while I sympathize with anyone who has experienced discrimination, I don't trust it until it's been confirmed with evidence.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
TFA says they have evidence. Multiple, independent victims and witnesses that tell the same story. Actual documentation related to each case.
What more do you need?
Re:Not breaking out the pitchforks yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Ideally to see it. Absent that, for a judge and jury to rule on it.
Anyone can say anything, and no one is more persuasive than someone trying to sell you a pile of shit, after all.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the shittiest shit that I've ever shit.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It was worth investigating, sure. Where it fell apart is that it quickly became apparent that their stories were unbelievable and contradicted by known facts. If you are going to make up crimes you should probably find out how those crimes actually go down first.
Re: (Score:2)
From Joe McCarthy's infamous "Wheeling" speech:
"While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205."
It's important to provide the claims and the evidence. Too often, the evidence does not prove what is claimed. The relatively recent "28% gender pay gap" turned out to be misreported, a difference in the net income over a worklife due to refusing high-workload opportuniti
Re: (Score:3)
I'm cases like this you might not get to see evidence, it might be a settlement or kept sealed in court to protect the victims.
That's not a reason to cast doubt on the accusers. Having said that, TFA has a lot of detail, there was an investigation by journalists that triggered this.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm cases like this you might not get to see evidence, it might be a settlement or kept sealed in court to protect the victims.
That's not a reason to cast doubt on the accusers.
Lack of evidence means the claim is unsubstantiated. ie: That's precisely a reason to doubt the accuser. The only better reason to doubt an accuser is if they admit they made it up.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not lack of evidence, it's you not being allowed to see the evidence. There is a legal system in place to evaluate evidence and sometimes the details will not be made public.
I see some hypocrisy here. Not from you but from many /. conservatives. When Damore's settlement with Google is kept secret that's fine and it is assume he won millions of dollars and proved all his allegations. When some women complain about gendered discrimination and harassment the required standard of public proof is considerab
Re: (Score:2)
Multiple, independent victims and witnesses that tell the same story.
That's Twitter for you right there summarised in one line.
Dropbox? (Score:2)
More like Cockbox amirite?
Well that's it (Score:2)
In LA, we have sidewalks that are no longer passable because they have become permanent homeless camps. More and more people are out of work, and joining those ranks, innocent families ending up shoulder to sholder with crackheads and gangbangers. Our governor is hobnobbing with the elite, eating meals that cost $350 pr. patron. People are fleeing California in droves.
So what does this have to do with Nevada? Well this is another loud proclaimation that the ones who are not part of the social elite can go f
Re: Well that's it (Score:3)
Fuck, this was ment for "Nevada Bill Would Allow Tech Companies To Create Governments"
Taking their cases to HR (Score:2)
experiencing retribution when they take their cases to HR
Don't you know? HR is there to protect management, not you.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I've never seen HR help people (unless it was "where are they extra keyboards?" or "can we have sprite in the fridge?"). If you want them to do something, you need to make your case like a lawyer and essentially compel them to take action.
Re: (Score:2)
Well your HR must be more competent than mine. My HR's job appears to be to drool on themselves. At least I assume so based on observation. If they tried to protect management they'd probably just get drool on them too.
Question... (Score:2)
What do we call discrimination when its based on having kids? I socially experimented with a employer several years ago by telling them I had kids when I really didn't. I noticed it was a hell of a lot easier to take random time off for various fake events, like kids soccer games, meeting with school teachers, kid is sick, etc. Nobody ever complained about me being gone... I even went as far as putting pictures of me with my niece and nephew on my desk and pretended they were my kids. The only question I ev
I've worked for decades for various companies (Score:1)
and the people alleging mistreatment when things go wrong for them are:
1. women alleging gender discrimination
2. non-whites alleging racism
3. white males alleging the boss had a vendetta against them
None were true. People tend to be blind to causes when they are of their own making.
Discrimination (Score:1)
A case of false expectations? (Score:1)
It's possible to have a career setback after a maternity. The replacement will have worked themselves into the position and will now likely have earned it, while the returning woman will have to catch up. Unless the replacement steps down voluntarily might there not be a suitable position available for the returning mother and she will have to accept a setback. To expect the same old job back after being absent for half a year or more, and for the replacement to take the setback, is unrealistic. It then doe
Gender discrimination is over used. (Score:1)
There could be numerous reasons why a person is not promoted or why a person is demoted, and unless you can show with very strong evidence that it's solely based on gender / gender identification, you should NEVER cla