My letter to Jim Franklin about why I'm leaving SendGrid

http://snowedin.net/blog/2013/03/21/2349/

by erikpukinskis • 13 years ago

10 54 13 years ago

Stupid...

tomflack• 13 years ago

> Richards should be absolutely commended for what she did, documenting and publicizing the abuse against her. It’s extremely hard to do, and it’s incredibly valuable to the community.

From what I understand, she wasn't subject to abuse until after the tweet went live. She overheard some slightly lewd jokes not directed at her and decided to use a public forum to shame the jokers instead of more appropriate means.

erikpukinskis7• 13 years ago

In the context of a professional environment with fairly constant misogyny, I think it does constitute abuse. She's just trying to attend a conference and she's forced to stop focusing on the tech, stop focusing on doing her job, and instead focus on the people behind her and whether she's safe in the space.

The hypervigilance that pervasive sexism in the tech community demands from women is extremely harmful. It makes these spaces very unpleasant for most women. And so all women are excluded except the handful with very thick skin who think these things are "no big deal".

citruspi• 13 years ago

> she's forced to stop focusing on the tech, stop focusing on doing her job, and instead focus on the people behind her

Assuming that this was true - she was so overwhelmed by jokes about a dongle that she could not concentrate on the conference - she could have easily turned around and told them that the conversation made her uncomfortable. She did not have to, and should not have, publicly shamed them for a private joke.

> whether she's safe in the space

Where does this come from? It was a joke about a dongle. Anatomy. Even if it was sexual, which is questionable, she was not threatened. They never threatened her. They never gave her lewd looks. They were never a threat to her or other people at the conference.

nemothekid• 13 years ago

Not sure I can agree with this letter.

1.) From what I can gather she wasn't the direct target of abuse, so to frame that was is disingenuous. I understand that making "dongle" jokes at a conference is inappropriate, but its nothing more than inappropriate.

2.) How she handled it was completely wrong and unprofessional. Again like Amanda Blum[1] states, she has frequently sidestepped the right channels and has taken issues into her own hands. This has caused considerable trouble for PyCon, SendGrid and PlayHaven. SendGrid, should not be DDoS for several hours over a dick joke. People lost money. More than anything that is the take away here. I doubt Adria would have lost her job if she took it twitter after coming to the conclusion that the men won't be apologetic and PyCon wouldn't do anything about it.

[1]https://amandablumwords.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/3/

dalke14• 13 years ago

I don't see where the letter says or implies there was direct abuse. It just says abuse.

I interpret it as meaning that the author believes that indirect abuse, including hearing sexist jokes while in the workplace, should also be "absolutely unacceptable."

That is not a novel or even rare viewpoint. For examples that I easily found:

"Sexual abuse includes: Telling sexual jokes that make the victim uncomfortable" - http://haventhedalles.org/sexual-abuse.html

"Sexual abuse ... [can even take the form of] telling sexual jokes at the victim’s expense." - http://www.flaknelaw.com/minnesota-family-law/domestic-viole...

"[Patterns of] Sexual Abuse .. Makes sexual jokes about women" - http://www.wcsafeharbors.com/domestic_violence_patterns.html

This is why documents like http://www3.uakron.edu/lawrev/robert1.html include things like:

> Professor Catherine MacKinnon advises companies to warn employees against posting suggestive photographs, telling sexual jokes or making innuendoes, or romancing subordinates. ... Finally, she says that the company should prohibit everyone in the company from retaliating against a worker who files a sexual harassment complaint.

Do also note that this firing treads close to the anti-retaliation laws. Quoting from the EEOC at http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/facts-retal.cfm :

> An employer may not fire, demote, harass or otherwise "retaliate" against an individual for filing a charge of discrimination, participating in a discrimination proceeding, or otherwise opposing discrimination.

I am not saying that this firing is in violation of the law and EEOC rules, because I'm not a lawyer and I don't know the case history. But my naive reading of the EEOC Compliance manual, at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB:

> Public criticism of alleged discrimination may be a reasonable form of opposition. Courts have protected an employee's right to inform an employer's customers about the employer's alleged discrimination, as well as the right to engage in peaceful picketing to oppose allegedly discriminatory employment practices.

suggests that posting those pictures is likely a protected action. If so, then while you may think it's "unprofessional", it's not a valid reason for firing someone.

(The laws are made even more complicated by a balancing act between what a "reasonable person" would expect, the understanding that an employee don't know all of the details of the law, and more factors. Like, Richards's job requires going to conferences, hence PyCon is part of the workplace, but SendGrid doesn't have control over what happens at the conference, so discrimination claims filed to SendGrid are useless.)

I'm pretty sure you don't know how the EEOC would handle this case either, since your #2 does not reflect at least my limited understanding of the relevant laws. Protected opposition can include doing things that are "unprofessional" and things that cost others money (the EEOC's example is a production slow-down).

Also, you brought up an account of how "she has frequently sidestepped the right channels", but unless they were related to her job, I suspect that they cannot be used to fire someone. Specifically, Colorado law C.R.S 24-34-402.5 ("Unlawful prohibition of legal activities as a condition of employment")

    (1) It shall be a discriminatory or unfair employment practice for an employer to
    terminate the employment of any employee due to that employee's engaging in any
    lawful activity off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours unless
    such a restriction:

      (a) Relates to a bona fide occupational requirement or is reasonably and rationally
      related to the employment activities and responsibilities of a particular employee
      or a particular group of employees, rather than to all employees of the employer; or
      (b) Is necessary to avoid a conflict of interest with any responsibilities to the
      employer or the appearance of such a conflict of interest.

(SendGrid appears to be a Colorado company, but other states have similar laws. See also the note 'This section applies to lawful, off-duty conduct, even if it is work-related. Insofar as the section refers to "any lawful activity", it can be presumed that the general assembly meant all activity without limitation. Accordingly, damages could be awarded to person who was terminated for making a complaint off the premises of the employer during nonworking hours about the safety of a work site. Watson v. Pub. Serv. Co., 207 P.3d 860 (Colo. App. 2008).')

Thus, it really does read that if Richards is fired because of any of the reasons you gave in #2, then it's likely an unfair and illegal employment practice, and Richards can sue and win.

nbouscal6• 13 years ago

They were not sexual jokes at Adria's expense. They were not sexual jokes about women. They were not sexist jokes. They were jokes about dongles. Men make dick jokes. Women make dick jokes. They're usually in bad taste, but they are in no way sexist. This wasn't abuse, it was a publicity op that went south. Adria saw an opportunity for a spotlight and didn't foresee the consequences of that spotlight. Judging from her blog post, she's more of a sexist than the joker, because she makes the implicit assumption that other women can't be around sexual humor. Anyone who spends any time with women knows that that is not the case; most of my female friends make dirtier jokes than I ever would. The jokes were not discriminatory, they were not prejudicial, they were not sexist, and they were not abuse.

bigalo936• 13 years ago

Documenting a problem is completely different from public humiliation. This company did the right thing. You say Adria received abuse, but out of all I have read, including her own blog post, she was not abused. She was the aggressor. These men didn't even know she was offended. If she would have asked them to be more polite, I am confident they would have done the right thing. You, I must say, are causing an issue with a company in the right. So maybe they are better off without you, Heh?

7beersonthewall3• 13 years ago

Right on... She went to Twitter. She opened the can of worms instead of saying something directly to them. She should have expected what she got.

monkeyspaw• 13 years ago

You can't seriously suggest that she deserved the misogynistic abuse heaped on after the fact, can you?

dalke14• 13 years ago

I really don't see how you can so easily say that "[t]his company did the right thing."

I looked, but found nothing in the laws prohibiting this form of "public humiliation". Defamation? Yes. Slander? Yes. But it appears to be a protected free speech right to post pictures that were taken in public places and to write truthful personal accounts of what happened. (And I found a lot of people who want to sue their landlord/ boss/ neighbor/ cashier/ etc. for public humiliation. I really don't think you want to open that can of worms.)

In fact, it appears (based on my limited reading of EEOC laws), that firing someone solely for making a claim about sexual discrimination may be illegal. Quoting from the EEOC compliance manual at http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/retal.html#IIpartB :

Picketing surely contains an element of public humiliation, no? I'm sure that the factory owners would love to fire the picketers because the picketers were causing the factory owners to be humiliated in public.

I then dug up the cited Circuit Court case, Sumner v. United States Postal Service, 899 F.2d 203 (2d Cir. 1990). It says:

> To establish that his activity is protected under Title VII, a plaintiff need not prove the merit of his underlying discrimination complaint, but only that he was acting under a good faith, reasonable belief that a violation existed. Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989); Manoharan v. Columbia University College of Physicians & Surgeons, 842 F.2d 590, 593 (2d Cir.1988). In addition to protecting the filing of formal charges of discrimination, Sec. 704(a)'s opposition clause protects as well informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including making complaints to management, writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general, and expressing support of co-workers who have filed formal charges. See Grant v. Hazelett Strip-Casting Corp., 880 F.2d 1564, 1569 (2d Cir.1989), and Schlei & Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law, 548-49 (1983).

So, Title VII protect employees who make "informal protests of discriminatory employment practices, including ... writing critical letters to customers, protesting against discrimination by industry or by society in general." Huh. That sounds like a pretty close description of this event, doesn't it?

It really reads like the various actions of Sanders are explicitly covered under Title VII protections of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If so, that means that firing her - if done because of those actions - illegal.

When you say the company was "right", do you mean that as a moral statement independent of what the law says? Or do you actually think that the this was a legal workplace action? If the latter, could you elaborate on how it avoids the seemingly relevant Title VII protections?

When doing so, please remember that select enforcement of employee rules is also illegal. For example, if you argue that it's acceptable to fire this employee because she took identifiable pictures of others in a public space, while on company time, then it can't be that others in the company have done the same and weren't fired. Similarly, if her supervisors have seen those sorts of pictures before and never gave a warning that they are against company policy, then they don't have much of a legal leg to stand on by suddenly enforcing it now.

bigalo936• 13 years ago

I think you misunderstood my comment. From my understanding of the law, which is limited I might add, this company has every right to fire her if she no longer fulfills her job requirements to the company's standards. She was at this conference representing her company. She is expected by her company to act with a certain level of professionalism. The public humiliation I spoke of took place during a time in which she was on the clock so to speak. This is where she went wrong. She represented her company in a very negative way by humiliating these men, quite tactlessly, in public. In this sense she was being quite hypocritical. She was acting just as unprofessional if not worse than the men making the jokes. I do believe that this is proper justification for firing an employee (as was observed when the man who made the joke was fired by his company.) The public humiliation I spoke of was not legal justification for her termination. It was the fact that she represented her company in an unprofessional manner that led to her being fired.

If she would have been mature and confronted these men, as grown ups should, this all could have been avoided. The only reason I say she was the aggressor is the simple fact that these men didn't even know they were offending her. They were in the wrong, most definitely, but that does not make it right for her to act unprofessionally as well.

As far as I can tell, this company's choice was legal and in their best interest.

IvyMike2• 13 years ago

This whole situation has been a clusterfuck, with overreactions by almost everyone involved.

This strikes me as yet another overreaction.

7beersonthewall3• 13 years ago

Ditto...

erikpukinskis7• 13 years ago

That's cool, you're entitled to your opinion. But you writing that adds nothing to the conversation.

I think the fact that the vast majority of women are not comfortable going to tech conferences and working at many tech companies is actually a big deal, and the rare cases where someone actually DOES something in response to it is actually a pretty landmark event that deserves significant attention.

If you feel differently, at least try to articulate why.

dopamean2• 13 years ago

I'm not disagreeing with you but where do you get this stuff about the vast majority of women being uncomfortable going to tech conferences? Is that anecdotal? Is there a study you can cite?

Also, just because someone is offended doesn't give them the right to respond however they want. They still need to be responsible.

IvyMike2• 13 years ago

I have no doubt that sexism exists in this industry; I've seen it. And it does need to be addressed, in a very serious way.

But on the other hand, this started when someone made a crude but not (at least to me) harassing or sexist remark. Maybe as a male, you'll think I'm blind to such things and disqualified to judge them as "not harassing", and I actually kind of get that view--I haven't and can never live on the other side.

But I still maintain in the realm of sexist things that go on, this one was hardly a blip. And the chain of events that followed is nearly unbelievable.

There's no reason two people had to lose their jobs and have their names dragged through the mud, there's no reason two companies had to have their reputations sullied, there's no reason anonymous internet bullies needed to direct their bile towards Adria and women in general, and there's no reason any site needed to be hacked or DDOS'd.

Seriously, one loud distracting noise at the right moment and everyone's life would be better off.

deepinside• 13 years ago

You don't go to many tech conferences do you?

Women are very well represented at most, and very welcomed.

michaelwww• 13 years ago

Stephen Fry: It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so fucking what?

Ricky Gervais: Just because someone is offended doesn't mean they're right.

erikpukinskis7• 13 years ago

I don't give a shit about people being offended. If the only thing happening is someone being "offended" then there's no harm, no foul. Go along with your day.

Now, in cases where people are being harmed, then I care. This is such a case.

rsanders• 13 years ago

What was the harm, exactly? She overheard a stupid joke far less crude than one might hear on any television show during prime time. It was no worse than the one she posted on her own Twitter.

sheraz• 13 years ago

...And so continues the chain of overreactions...

The emotional development of all involved, including these shallow protests, have the funk of adolescence and immaturity. I keep waiting for the principal to walk down the hall and break up the tantrum and shouting match.

Erik, grow up. Adira, grow up. Guys in the back, grow up.

Let me continue the High School metaphor for a moment:

  Guys in the back, you are two man-boys who never matured or learned any etiquette,
  and your dick joke was (unfortunately) overheard by the wrong person.

  Adira, you are the nosy busy-body that would rat out anyone who you perceive to 
  break the rules.

  Erik your symbolic protest reminds me of the permanently "friend-zoned" guy who 
  tries to show that not all men are pigs.

That is the level of drama here. Its playing out like a lost episode of Saved by the Bell. I keep waiting for Screech to bring some levity to the situation. Because that is not going to happen, I will leave you with this:

  Q. How many feminists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
  A. One. AND THAT IS NOT FUNNY!

Edit: better word choice

Gigablah• 13 years ago

Careful now, that joke might get you fired.

tn13• 13 years ago

Cant agree with this letter. It is stupid to call the dongle jokes cracked between two friends as "abuse". This seems to be an over reaction.

Stop fighting the strawman err strawperson guys.

escaped_hn2• 13 years ago

I fail to see how she was "abused" at Pycon.

dalke14• 13 years ago

Do you think abuse is limited to physical abuse?

Verbal abuse is still a type of abuse. Though as Wikipedia points out, "[d]espite being the most common form of abuse, verbal abuse is generally not taken as seriously as other types, because there is no visible proof..."

I believe the logic is pretty straight-forward. Sexist opinions in the tech industry (and/or culture in general) have lead to a hostile workplace for a woman whose job includes going to many tech conferences and who often hears sexist jokes and other (unstated) sexist statements. These are a form of verbal sexual harassment, which is a type of verbal abuse.

To continue from the same Wikipedia citation for "Verbal abuse", "In reality, however, verbal abuse can be more detrimental to a person's health than physical abuse."

nbouscal6• 13 years ago

The jokes were not sexist. I've had to type that sentence so many times the keys are starting to wear in. The jokes were not sexist. They were not about women, directed towards women, or discriminatory towards women. They didn't have anything to do with women at all. Calling a dongle joke sexist is extremely detrimental because it distracts from real instances of sexism that do occur within this community. We need to talk about the real issues, and this incident is not one of them.

My letter to Jim Franklin about why I'm leaving SendGrid

Related Stories