meme made by me using free libre open source software aka Gnu Image Manipulation Program (ak… aka GIMP) uwu

(Lemmy original meme fr)

  • Dran@lemmy.world
    484·
    2 days ago

    When you’re the size of LMG you don’t hire investigative law firms for PR; you do it for liability. The goal is to limit corporate liability by removing individuals likely to get you sued, and most importantly to distance leadership from it with plausible deniability. The firm also has its own reputation to consider, and wouldn’t let a client get away with materially misrepresenting their results.

    I don’t think its unreasonable to suggest that a positive finding from an investigative firm is evidence to support their position that they, materially, did nothing wrong. The fact that no one was fired as a result of that investigation is a good sign externally, as it would open them up to more liability if they knew about it and did nothing.

    • d00phy@lemmy.worldEnglish
      193·
      2 days ago

      Adding to this, at least publicly, they stated that regardless of the outcome, the situation highlighted changes that needed to be made within their organization. IIRC, they didn’t produce anything for bit while they “addressed the issues.” I recall a YT video of Linus explaining all that. Take it for what it’s worth.

      Personally, I think it’s likely that something happened that offended a former employee. That thing may or may not have been a misunderstanding, but either way, the employee felt harassed. I can’t fault how LMG handled it. Any other company would’ve responded similarly. I’m not saying they did the “bare minimum.” I’m saying, to me, their response seemed reasonable.

    • David_Eight@lemmy.world
      410·
      2 days ago

      Not being held legally liable ≠ Nothing happened

      Afaik the report that was done was not made public. If one side paid for the investigation and controls all the info in said investigation then it can’t be used as proof of innocence.

      The firm also has its own reputation to consider, and wouldn’t let a client get away with materially misrepresenting their results.

      Meaning what? What would the company doing the investigation do is if the claims that someone said:

      I was asked about my sexual history, my boyfriends sexual history, “how I liked to fuck”.

      I was asked to twerk for a co-worker at one point.

      I was told I was chunky, fat, ugly, stupid. I was called “retarded” I was called a "removed

      Where true? How would one even prove that actually happened to them? The Investigation Company surely signed an NDA and had no legal ability to release any info found in says investigation right? If they started releasing info that accusations where in fact true they would lose all their business immediately right?