Lol kissing ass won't also bolster your argument.

Look at the first paragraph. I don't have one.
Things like this make me avoid threads like this

I don't exactly know where you're getting at.

Sorry if I hit a nerve somewhere.

If it's only one plaintiff it can't be a class action. Though maybe they want to make it a class action by convincing other women to get on board.

I don't think this case has much chance of success without some hard documentary evidence reaching to the highest levels, and without several women coming forward from numerous divisions within MS. There is zero chance of MS's HR and performance appraisal policies having explicit wording that is gender discriminatory. And if you are alleging systematic discrimination it's not enough to prove that a specific manager is a sexist dick and is blocking a woman's legitimate claim for advancement (or more pay) on the basis of her woman-ness.

Basically they will have to prove a secret squirrel conspiracy going on behind closed doors. And those are very hard to prove to the satisfaction of a court even when they do exist.

I make no judgement on the legitimacy or otherwise of the claim, and I don't think anyone here can, as we do not have anything close to all the necessary facts of the case to be able to come to a decent conclusion.

Nope, they are fun. Let's make a gay cat parade

Basically. I mean MS could probably win this without going under the table but I just find it hard for a lot of people to just downplay someone's accusation in favor of a corporation when work discrimination is still a thing. I mean the victim-blaming in here is not a good look for this site.

Good stuff 😆

well lawsuits with fake cases are a thing too.  and m$ musst be realy realy stupid if they discriminated against women. its a crime without benefits and wit high costs. the risk-reward people would say no and the lawyers too.  m$ has no agenda so its very unlikely that they discriminate against anyone

Officially and systematically, no major corporations with high public profiles could never have formal policies that are discriminatory. But that doesn't mean discrimination doesn't happen in the workplace. And if there has been discrimination, and it was not corrected when it was raised within the established HR processes, then regardless of what the official corporate policies are there is some corporate accountability. Automatically dismissing the possible validity of a case on the basis of "no corporation would have formal policies that gender discriminate" is a very narrow understanding of what is and isn't discrimination in the workplace.  The culture of a workplace can be discriminatory even if the written policies are completely equal opportunity.

the case doesnt isnt about some assheads who only promote men and are bestbuddys with HR

"“[a]s a result of Microsoft’s policies, patterns, and practices, female technical employees receive less compensation and are promoted less frequently than their male counterparts. Microsoft company-wide policies and practices systematically violate female technical employees’ rights and result in the unchecked gender bias that pervades its corporate culture.”"

is clearly  much deeper accusation.