Hacker News Reader

Comment by niggler | Hacker News Reader

"No court would consider him guilty of anything for a joke about a dongle."

I'm not an employee of playhaven, but I'm sure new employees sign employment agreements. Usually those agreements reference standards of conduct and that violations can result in termination. The court would have to establish that the employment agreement is null and void, which is a much harder challenge.

"I doubt his company had a sexual harassment policy that was substantially more aggressive than what the law provides."

What we don't know is if employees of playhaven complained about his banter. If they did, and he was informed and asked to stop, then it's his fault.

"He should be able to get defamation"

He might get defamation from her but not from PlayHaven.

View on HN

PlayHaven implied strongly that:

(a) mr-hank did or said something sexually inappropriate. (He lost ground by admitting some degree of guilt on HN. Otherwise, it'd all be hearsay and he could say he was just talking about a literal dongle.)

(b) mr-hank's conduct was so bad that there was no choice other than to fire him: "having to let this employee go". It wasn't we decided to fire him. It was we had to fire him. Important distinction, and quite likely, technically false. They probably fired him to save face, not because of an objective violation of any law or ethical principle that left them no other option.

It's not a clear-cut case, and it's less so in the light of his HN admission, but he can certainly argue that the press release (a) misrepresents his behavior, (b) in a way that will damage his reputation and future employability.

He has a lot of options here. He may settle for an amazing reference and introductions to investors. Or he might get a six-figure sum out of it. Or he might walk away. Depends what he wants.

PlayHaven fucked up big time. These companies (especially PlayHaven; SendGrid has more of a case) should be more embarrassed than the people involved.

>He may settle for an amazing reference and introductions to investors

Honest question: if you essentially blackmail someone for an "introduction to investors" what makes you think the person introducing doesn't pull them aside before or after and say "this guy basically threatened to sue me if I didn't introduce him to you"? I have to imagine anyone in that position would likely do that, you could never prove they did it, and the investors would likely in no way take you seriously. That seems like the worst possible parlay I can imagine.

You get that in the settlement contract, two-way non-disparagement including your right to see any communication about you, that must be furnished in writing.

That's impossible to perfectly enforce, but if you suspect he's talking off the books, you trap him and hit hard for breach of contract. He should know that you intend to be checking. He should expect that and be careful. It's your job to make that so. You might not be able to catch all cases (he might say things to people he really trusts but not to everyone) but you can have some degree of a chilling effect on negative communication of the sort you described.

Also, what's better for him, once the contract is signed:

1. Make the introduction and leave it alone, or:

2. Make the introduction, then backtrack, making himself look inconsistent and weak to that investor? ("Yeah, I wasted your time, and here's why...")

He cares about his image in front of that investor, and will probably prefer (1). This assumes he doesn't hate your guts, which he might. That's a danger of doing the right thing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com