A note from Keith

http://keithrabois.tumblr.com/post/41463189288/a-note-from-keith

by kevingibbon • 13 years ago

323 156 13 years ago

keithrabois.tumblr.com

selectout• 13 years ago

Sad to see things like this happen, but I can't wait to see what he is able to come up with and bring to the world next. He has done amazing jobs in his previous roles and I am excited to see what he brings next from the PayPal Mafia.

kogir2• 13 years ago

Proof of authenticity?

Anyone could have registered that tumblr, and it has no other content.

Please leave tabloid gossip to the tabloids until real information is available - and then leave it off HN.

kevingibbon3• 13 years ago

Techcrunch has confirmed it.

http://techcrunch.com/2013/01/25/rabois-left-square-over-sex...

kogir2• 13 years ago

Please forgive me if I don't count coverage by Techcrunch as verification. Did he tweet it? Link from FB? Send a signed email?

It could be legit, but the bar should be higher than this.

Macsenour4• 13 years ago

Confirmed that he resigned is not the same as confirming he wrote the blog post.

cookiecaper2• 13 years ago

There are many tweets at https://twitter.com/rabois that seem to indirectly acknowledge authorship of "the message". People sent him tweets of encouragement based on this article, and he is replying with a variation of "thanks" to many of them.

buf2• 13 years ago

Saddest news I've read all day. Sex happens. Why ruin someone for this?

danso10• 13 years ago

Huh? From what Keith says, his accuser is claiming that non-consensual acts occurred. Whether that is the case will be up to the courts to decide, but this is not just "Sex happens"

rhizome• 13 years ago

He said the suit alleges the relationship was not consensual. There's a difference, and I'm guessing it's oriented around the employment aspect.

joezydeco• 13 years ago

I'm confused about one detail that either I'm reading wrong, or is missing here.

The accuser is claiming that Keith sexually harassed him into interviewing for a job at Square? Or did the harassment start once the accuser was hired? Or both?

I'm not sure how the company fits into the picture until the guy was actually hired and working there.

trompette• 13 years ago

You don't know what he did to him, maybe that was gay rape!

jmcgough2• 13 years ago

from Square:

“The first we heard of any of these allegations was when we received the threat of a lawsuit two weeks ago. We took these allegations very seriously and we immediately launched a full investigation to ascertain the facts. While we have not found evidence to support any claims, Keith exercised poor judgment that ultimately undermined his ability to remain an effective leader at Square. We accepted his resignation.”

jacalata2• 13 years ago

It's interesting that he says Square had no knowledge of the relationship until the lawsuit. I've heard of companies requiring that you tell HR if you are in a relationship with another employee- seems that level of disclosure would be very smart for someone at the top of the company, at least.

Macsenour4• 13 years ago

That struck me as odd too. When I saw someone I had a single date with was interviewing at the company I worked for, as she left the building I went to HR and told them so that there would be no surprise later. And that was just a single date, not an ongoing relationship.

danso10• 13 years ago

Yeah, Keith mentions this fact in an understated way...but it really is a huge part of this drama. From the reading of the news articles, you could argue that even if the sexual harassment charges were dropped, Square would be justified in pushing Keith out for not disclosing this personal conflict-of-interest.

josephlord• 13 years ago

I'm from the UK and that strikes me as bizarre although I understand there is greater concern about these areas in the US. Unless you have hiring responsibility or they are on your direct reporting line I would see no need to report anything (even an ongoing relationship). That may change in the future if things are reorganized and a more direct business relationship is established.

Even then with a single date I wouldn't feel any need to report a single date unless they were reporting to me fairly directly and I was covering my ass.

A CEO is on everyone's reporting line and is also potentially a target so there is more of a reason for them to be careful and to report things.

None of this matters to me know as I'm married and am currently a one man company with no plans for staff growth.

spuz6• 13 years ago

It strikes me as odd that a company should be automatically given privilege to the personal relationships of its employees. Maybe I'm not fully understanding the situation here but I cannot see any reason for why an employee's relationship with another employee should be of any concern to the company.

rdl3• 13 years ago

COO is not really "an employee".

brown9-24• 13 years ago

A company would want to know of a relationship outside of work in case there are conflicts at work between the two employees in the future.

And because a reporting relationship between sexual partners is a bad idea.

"I think we need to let X go" could take on a whole new context if the speaker was just dumped by X.

255martyn• 13 years ago

I don't fully understand why this makes me so angry, but it does. The company you work for has no right to know anything about your personal life. To be expected to disclose things to HR is ridiculous.

danso10• 13 years ago

Are you serious? Did you read the OP? Did you read the part where he describes encouraging his lover to apply for a job -- and oh, what a coincidence, his lover happens to beat out numerous applicants for a job at a highly respected startup -- and how his lover has just filed a lawsuit accusing the OP of sexual harassment and even attempted, according to the OP, to extort millions from the OP?

And if you read that, you're still asking why HR has any right to know if their executives are in a possible enanglement with a subordinate?

OK, maybe you have a reflexive hate of HR. don't fixate on them. Instead, pretend you were in the shoes of Square's founders or major investors, and you're reading a lawsuit that accuses your COO of sexual harassment, the kind of sexual harassment allegation that can only come from a COO who broke standard operating procedure (I.e. not informing HR of this)

Would you think the investors and partners are more angrier or less angrier than you right now?

vln• 13 years ago

Was he openly gay/bi? I could see him not wanting to disclose a same sex relationship and outing himself.

thejsjunky• 13 years ago

Or the person he's dating. I don't think that absolves what is obviously some poor decision making, but I think it makes things a little more complicated than some are perhaps considering.

abraininavat• 13 years ago

To those of you who immediately believe the tumblr and therefore condemn the accuser as a liar: On what basis do you make your judgment? Do you:

1. Know Keith or the accuser personally, and therefore have the capacity to make an educated guess as to the veracity of the claims?

2. Believe that rich people, well known people, or people with blogs don't have the capacity to do what Keith is accused of doing?

3. Believe the first side of the story you hear in any given situation?

If neither 1, 2, nor 3 is the case, I urge you to not jump to conclusions. There's a human being on the other side of the story.

falcolas• 13 years ago

There's a human being on both sides of the story here. And being falsely accused of sexual harassment is a painful event.

I can't side with either party right now (due to the lack of facts), but I certainly feel more for Keith than I do the other, anonymous party.

nbashaw• 13 years ago

That's the point - just because the other party is anonymous doesn't mean they deserve less empathy. Of course, we're biased to the more vivid human character, but it's just a bias. Let's try and correct it with reason.

FireBeyond• 13 years ago

Why, because they haven't taken to a blog to talk of the emotional turmoil they are suffering through (allegedly) as the result of these actions?

If empathy is a car fueled by how vocal you are in expressing yourself, well... that's not so good.

doe88• 13 years ago

I think you're right, I would just generalize your point. There are human beings on both sides of the story, we must remain moderate and refrain from making too much judgements until more facts are known and the justice has fully investigated this case.

67726e3• 13 years ago

Innocent until proven guilty.

swalberg2• 13 years ago

That's from criminal law, this seems to be a civil act. Also, while we're there, the burden of proof is different -- proof beyond a reasonable doubt vs balance of probabilities.

(IANAL, I just remember this from an engineering law class)

VMG2• 13 years ago

So is the accuser innocent as well?

malachismith• 13 years ago

Yes, No, No.

It's a shakedown - and successful entrepreneurs need to start getting smarter about this shit. We've actually got something to lose now.

csense3• 13 years ago

Mr. Rabois's story has the ring of truth.

Consider the following, which are presumably objectively verifiable facts:

A. Mr. Rabois doesn't name his accuser. If he was looking to inflict damage on them, he'd publicize it.

B. The accuser is seeking a payment of "millions of dollars."

C. The relationship began several months before the accuser's employment with Square.

D. The two came into relatively little contact at work.

These facts all show a high probability that the relationship was consensual, and also give a low probability that the accuser will be able to produce conclusive proof of coercion, such as:

. Texts or emails from the accuser saying Mr. Rabois's advances were unwelcome or made him uncomfortable.

. Evidence that Mr. Rabois gave the accuser job-related threats and/or rewards in exchange for the continuing relationship.

This does not conclusively show, of course, that Mr. Rabois is innocent. Nor does it mean the accuser doesn't have a solid case that will stand up in court. But based on the available information, this does seem to be the likelier outcome.

ceejayoz• 13 years ago

A. His lawyer likely would prefer he not do that.

B. Allegedly.

C. It could easily go bad later, leading to "if we break up I'll get you fired" type statements.

D. An executive of this level has enough power to at least make the threat of punitive actions have weight.

I don't think we have anything to go on beyond a blog post from one of the parties.

arbuge• 13 years ago

One factor is Bayes' theorem and prior probabilities. The probability of being accused of sexual harassment changes when you're a wealthy executive working for a successful company like Square.

brown9-24• 13 years ago

And how, pray tell, are you quantifying this prior possibility?

danilocampos6• 13 years ago

What an impossible position.

On the one hand – work has become such a big part of our lives. If we make it impossible for romance and work to co-exist, that reduces a lot of surface area for finding long-term romantic partners.

On the other – at a certain level of authority and prominence, you just shouldn't have sex with someone you're working with. There's too much that can go wrong. This is the nightmare scenario for at least one of the parties, though we don't know for sure yet who it is.

But even if things don't shit the bed quite this bad, you're just asking for awkwardness and trouble in most cases.

Impossible.

johndevor2• 13 years ago

All very true, but this needs to be handled in-house. I think that's the big issue here. Square should have the right to enforce its own policies, not be subjected to legal harassment.

danilocampos6• 13 years ago

There's so much implicit wrongness in your statement my mind doesn't know where to lock on to respond. Sorry.

edit: I figured it out.

You seem to desire a world where Square is exalted to some sort of sovereign status, answerable to no law beyond their own policies and procedures. Which is a horrifying state of affairs.

If something happened here that is against the law, I am heartened that a legal framework exists to provide remedies. If it did not, I am similarly heartened to note that the accused at least has resources sufficient to mount a defense. We can argue the injustice of a false accusation, if indeed it turns out the accusation was so, but the accused admits maintaining a physical relationship was in poor judgment. This is one of the realities that comes from that level of success. It's a cost of doing business that you must be much, much more cautious in the deployment of your genitals.

kragen• 13 years ago

Yours is a remarkable position. The accuser asserts that he was coerced into sex by Keith, who (simplifying slightly) ran the company and set the policies. Do you think someone like Keith should have the authority to set policies that allow him to coerce his employees into sex? Like a US slave owner before the Civil War?

I'm not asserting that Keith did what he's accused of. But many, many other people have, and if we have to choose, I'd rather see the state monopoly on violence used to protect the victims, not the perpetrators.

lancewiggs• 13 years ago

Agreed. It was a great post, but #2 (not informing the employer of the relationship) essentially vetos the rest of the statement.

If you are a C-level executive then this sort of disclosure is fundamental - a good lesson to take away.

newbie12• 13 years ago

Wrong order. He had a romantic relationship, THEN recommended him to Square for a job (without disclosing the relationship). Not an impossible position at all-- more of an abuse of trust.

danilocampos6• 13 years ago

That seems an overly salacious interpretation. You're reading from the same text that said he had nothing to do with the hiring.

Recommending someone with technical skills work at your startup only crosses a line when you're both porking them and directly making the hiring decision, which if we're taking this at face value, didn't happen.

shardling• 13 years ago

That's not quite his story either -- his claim is that he suggested to his romantic partner that they apply at Square, and was not involved at all in the actual hiring.

charlieok• 13 years ago

You wrote, “recommended him to Square for a job”

Keith wrote, “I recommended that he interview at Square.”

The first is a recommendation given to Square. The second is a recommendation given to the thus-far-anonymous party. Big difference.

Perhaps it will come out that Keith did put in a good word at Square, but thus far Keith is denying this.

tlogan• 13 years ago

I'm not sure if this impossible position is given: he fucked up. He was C-level executive, his partner got hired, but he did not tell a word to HR (or company) about their relationship. Now, you have impossible position.

If the company and HR knew about their relationship then his position might not be so impossible.

danilocampos6• 13 years ago

Relationships are nebulous, unpredictable things.

Sometimes it feels like even talking about a relationship to other people can effect the state of that relationship. It's easy in hindsight to say, hey, you shouldn't have done it this way. But maybe at certain points it looked like it was about to dissolve itself, but didn't... who knows. I can see a few reasons why I wouldn't want to say anything, especially if this person wasn't a direct report.

(This is taking the story at face value – who knows the truth and if there was a more nefarious reason behind the withholding of that information.)

It's a spectrum. Consider two extremes:

Smart and clean: Don't form relationships at the office, period.

Dumb and messy: As CEO, have sex with the office manager of your small startup.

This sounds like something very much in the gray area in between.

cwb71• 13 years ago

Everyone seems to agree that not disclosing this to HR was a huge mistake, but I am not sure I understand how that would have helped.

You still have a sexual relationship between two people in the same organization with a big power differential between them.

Shouldn't the proper HR response just be "you need to absolutely not do that?" What can HR do beyond "keeping an eye on things?"

hoggle• 13 years ago

Is that a US specific thing only? Why would I have to disclose this deeply personal information to my employer? It is no one's business.

That said if crazy legal allegations like this come out of it I can understand the pressure. Still, it seems just wrong.

gadders• 13 years ago

When I read his post I was thinking "That's sad. Hope it works out for him."

But when you realise he's a C-Level exec, it's more a case of "WHAT WERE YOU THINKING!"

neltnerb3• 13 years ago

There is a straightforward way to address this situation. It is unfortunate that he either was not aware of it or did not avail himself of it.

Basically any sexual harassment training will tell you that yes, it is in fact okay to have a work place relationship so long as you disclose the relationship, and do not have a "evaluatory position" (meaning that either person is allowed to evaluate the performance of the other).

This was like stuff I was told on day one of working a real job. This sounds like an awful situation, so I hope anyone else in a similar situation realizes that disclosure is the only thing that disarms these sorts of situations.

HR is required to keep such things confidential, and there is nothing necessarily wrong with a work place relationship. And if you do this, what can really go wrong? If your relationship explodes into some dramatic fireball, sure, it sucks, but that's the reason you're in a non-evaluatory role. You may have to work in the same building, but at least you don't have your career path impacted by your ex.

tomjen32• 13 years ago

In this case he didn't have an evaluatory position, so why is its HRs business?

cadlin3• 13 years ago

Doesn't it seem likely to anyone else that Keith Rabois was not openly homosexual or bisexual, and that is the reason he didn't report the relationship to the company?

Or am I missing something really obvious?

jjb1234• 13 years ago

Am I the only one that was confused about that last line of "already working on something new and hope to announce that in February"...

He's gone through something as traumatic as a lawsuit, a resignation, potential for trial, potential embarrassment of family, friends, colleagues all in the last two weeks... And his sign-off is that he has, in the midst of it all, already begun to work on a new startup?

austenallred• 13 years ago

If so, there's not much I respect more than that.

felideon• 13 years ago

Maybe that's his therapy for coping. Would you rather him tear his clothes and put sackcloth on his waist?

r00fus• 13 years ago

No, but a quiet, brief, wander in the woods is generally what people expect - or a strong victory against the lawsuit.

jjb1234• 13 years ago

I can totally understand if it's his therapy, it would likely be mine... That doesn't answer the confusion in a teaser of a big work/unrelated announcement being in there though.

jhull• 13 years ago

or he's just capitalizing on a post that he know will get lots of attention to plug his next gig

MaxGabriel• 13 years ago

He could have been working on a side project for awhile, and is now able to work full-time on it.

samstave4• 13 years ago

When life gives you devestating sexual harassment shakedown lawsuits which require you to suddenly resign from a prominent position at a prominent industry company, make the best of it and use that traffic to tease the audience on the big things to come!

Yeah - that was a really weird thing to end it with.

Almost as if this post was written under the intense emotional stress that such things can cause - and make you do and say weird things.

drusenko• 13 years ago

I would imagine one of his primary concerns through this ordeal is that it has a long-term negative impact on his career. I just see it as his way of trying to maintain some amount of career momentum.

rsobers• 13 years ago

I honestly felt that statement to be out of place, too. It caught me off guard. While it's admirable that he's not going to let the lawsuit prevent him from continuing his life, I think he could have saved that line for a separate blog post. Not a big deal, just found that it took a bit a way from the serious message he was delivering.

morganb180• 13 years ago

It feels like his way of saying "Don't worry, I'm ok, I'll be back..."

I agree that it feels tacked on there. Probably would've been better to close with a "thanks for all of the support and understanding..." and wrap it up.

ucpete• 13 years ago

Interesting to read his note after this infamous story:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/06/masters-their-do...

sonabinu• 13 years ago

that is very interesting

zapdrive• 13 years ago

lol... why is this comment not on the top of this page?

irollboozers• 13 years ago

wow, I wonder what the backstory is to that incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois#Early_life

blackguardx• 13 years ago

More details:

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html

samstave4• 13 years ago

Wait, Dean Jackson saw the outburst as a fantastic vehicle to pushing discussion among students?

I am confused.

BHSPitMonkey• 13 years ago

Here's the original report:

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html

samstave4• 13 years ago

WTF?!

I knew Thiel was gay - and until today had no idea Rabois was as well. The story you linked to is the first time I've seen this and to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre.

Are they Tech's equivalent of the anti-gay senators caught in rest-stop bathrooms?

How weird this got quickly

slapshot• 13 years ago

> to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre.

Or Mother Jones is trying to set up a strawman of them as being homophoboic bigots without realizing that they were actually protesting [1] the then-controversial Stanford speech code, which prohibited much more speech than the government could prohibit. Lawsuits [2] were underway against the speech code and it was a bit of a topic of the day.

As others have pointed out, the safest way to protest a speech code that bans certain slurs against protected groups is to attack your own group. Rabois standing around using anti-gay slurs can easily prove that he's actually protesting the speech code by saying "look, I'm not homophobic, I'm actually gay myself." A bunch of white guys standing around dropping the n-word would not work out as well.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois#Early_life [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corry_v._Stanford

kiskis• 13 years ago

offtopic, and i'm not a native english speaker, but he refers to his partner as "he and his". does this mean that it's a gay relationship?

nathan_f77• 13 years ago

Yes.

run4yourlives• 13 years ago

Several months after our relationship began, I recommended that he interview at Square.

I don't know Keith, anyone at his company, this story or have any opinion on who did or didn't do what to whom.

I will just say this: The quote above, regardless of who says it when, is perhaps the worst business decision a person could ever make. Full Stop.

Please, don't do this. Especially if you are the boss.

danso10• 13 years ago

That, combined with this:

> Square did not know of the relationship before a lawsuit was threatened; it came as a complete surprise to the company.

Is what makes it "perhaps the worst business decision a person could ever make"

koide• 13 years ago

Even if they do know, it's still an awful decision to take.

The less likely outcome is that everything will go fine forever after.

It will very likely either become a mess (awkward situations, loss of job even for third parties, etc.) or a disaster for everyone involved (like a sexual harassment lawsuit.)

Espcially if you are the boss.

And even more if the person wasn't working there to begin with!

spuz6• 13 years ago

I don't understand. Maybe we have different professional cultures. Why is having an undisclosed relationship with another employee the worst possible business decision? (Certainly in my culture I can think of much worse decisions one person could make).

danso10• 13 years ago

1. "You want to break up with me? oK, you're fired"

2. "Maybe Bob is the better qualified candidate, but I'm going to promote the guy who's having sex with me"

bksenior2• 13 years ago

This is wildly dogmatic and not really based in reason. The risks of a relationship are evident, but what about the upside? Imagine the chance to vet someone over time for cultural and professional fit for a role that they might excel in. When a company gets large enough where there is zero interaction day to day are there no possibilities that this might work? Setting aside a lack of disclosure, is the leverage so great that someone is a liability having a social context? It just seems like people are pretty black and white on this.

TL:DR Devils Advocate Postion

danso10• 13 years ago

Wait...let me get this straight. You're asking "..is the leverage so great that someone is a liability" for having a relationship? And you're asking this in a thread in which the OP describes how his ex-lover's attempt at extortion (if we believe the OP) has forced him out of the company?

I guess the answer to your question is...yes?

zaidf• 13 years ago

I think the general accepted idea that the victim of said offenses should remain anonymous while the accused is outed is very sad and makes little sense. It makes the whole "innocent until proven guilty" idea a joke given the ample data that show permanent damage that mere accusation can cause even if you are proven innocent later.

brown9-24• 13 years ago

The accused has outed himself.

someoneannon• 13 years ago

When I was in my very early 20s I had a very bad false accusation made against me. It was the most awful time of my life, an ex who had issues and needed better support than I was able to give made the decision to go to the police with a made up story. I was interviewed and spent the next two weeks on a knife edge but ultimately everything was okay. I was very angry with her for such a long time but now now realise that it wasn't her falt and that the illness she suffered from was to blame.

If he is in the same situation that I was in, I can only feel sorry for both parties as it is such a terrible thing to happen.

(posting annonamusly for obvious reasons)

VMG2• 13 years ago

Good PR move to write a preemptive blog post.

Everybody seems to be on his side without having the details.

d0m• 13 years ago

Is it considered illegal to have a relationship with someone working at the same company?

cookiecaper2• 13 years ago

No, but it is illegal to use workplace positions of authority to coerce or pressure subordinates or colleagues into sexual activity. http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/sexual_harassment.cfm

csense3• 13 years ago

To this, I would add that it's difficult to determine when this has taken place. Often it's a case of "he-said she-said," unless the harasser manages to leave evidence (or in this particular case, "he-said he-said").

The large potential financial payoff from a successful lawsuit gives the accuser a motive to lie or misremember.

Also, people are notoriously bad about communicating with each other about relationships. So it's possible that the accuser genuinely thought he was being coerced, when this was not actually the case. I.e. if he'd simply broken up with Mr. Rabois instead of filing a lawsuit, there might have been no work-related consequences whatsoever; but he didn't believe this.

j98h• 13 years ago

what this mean "user like this"?? reading the dramatic situation and then view a lots of "user like this". They make me have a little smile, sorry.

mattdeboard2• 13 years ago

It's a social feature on Tumblr. It's like "Favorite" on Twitter.

mbell• 13 years ago

I am wildly confused.

Who is bringing this lawsuit?

The person he had the relationship with?

If not, who else and why/how would they have any grounds to do so?

EDIT: It appears the relationship ended in December (http://allthingsd.com/20130125/exclusive-interview-keith-rab...).

I guess that that opens up the options for who was possibly behind it and what the possible motivation was.

rdl3• 13 years ago

OMG, that is so fucked up. I can't imagine what Keith is feeling right now. I am sure this will get resolved as well as possible, but even if everything is dropped, it's a huge distraction for him.

Keith is an excellent human being and I am confident he acted appropriately (with the exception of being too trusting of this guy, and recommending him for Square, which was probably a mistake, but not a malicious act, rather an overly-generous act).

I am confident I would react much more poorly in this situation.

jusben1369• 13 years ago

It feels like there are several more shoes to drop still so probably best to hold off too many conclusive judgement calls.

mwetzler• 13 years ago

Can anyone explain why Keith leaving the company absolves Square of a potential lawsuit? If the company actually did something illegal, isn't the damage already done and still punishable? Seems there are quite a few missing pieces to this story. In any case it's a shame for all involved.

kevinpet• 13 years ago

I think they could claim not to have had any knowledge of anything until now. It's much easier to sue over things that the company knew about.

late2part• 13 years ago

Am I the only one that think Square sucks for not standing by their COO against this action that looks like blackmail?

His judgement was bad? Enough to fire him over?

Or this another case of a corporation putting overly politically correct perception and avoidance of risk beyond taking care of their own?

If you believe Mr. Rabois' story, he did nothing wrong, and the allegations are baseless.

So, why is Square peeved enough to let him go? I don't believe for an instance that Mr. Rabois is leaving out of altruistic ideals for Square.

SeoxyS• 13 years ago

I have been refusing to recommend my otherwise perfect-fit girlfriend for a position at my company for precisely this reason. You never know what might happen; and while I love her, I know it's best to keep professional and personal lives apart. You don't shit where you eat. It might sound cliché, but there's truth to it.

Benoit_• 13 years ago

I don't understand your reactions. Maybe because I am not from the US.

People say: you should NOT hire your partner.

So, you should NOT hire friends? So, you should NOT hire people you like? So, you should NOT hire people for who you have any opinion? So, you should NOT have any hobbies other employees can have?

Our decisions are obviously biased by our feelings, and it's normal, we want people reliable, people we can trust! What's wrong with that?

In some cases, we want objective decisions. In these cases, you should just recognize your incapacity to be unbiased and let other people take the decision.

When I read the blog post, Keith didn't seem to have faced a such case, so non-disclosed his relationship seemed to have been the best decision to avoid to influence other people decisions.

It's common to meet the "love of our life" where we work, I don't understand why it should be forbidden to those who have a management role.

AlexeyBrin• 13 years ago

I've learned a similar lesson the hard way ten years ago. However, in my case there was no lawsuit involved.

A note from Keith

Related Stories