Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s your issue here OP? Other than trying to be as inflammatory as possible? His race/gender/marital status/# of kids is irrelevant to the assault and discrimination he faced.

OP here: why are you assuming I have a problem? I stated the facts of the the case in the thread title.

You were being intentionally inflammatory by stating his race/gender/marital status/# of kids in the thread title. They are not relevant to him being sexually harassed. But you know this and are deflecting now because the thread didn’t go as you intended.

OP basically copied the caption that had been making the rounds in right wing news media about the case.

Oh so it was definitely intentionally inflammatory. Thanks for clarifying.

Anonymous wrote:I did NOT expect to see someone I knew when I opened this thread.

Strangest family. The Catholic version of the Duggers in some ways. Almost militant about gender roles. The girls knew their job was to get married and have babies. One of his sisters has 12 kids. One niece is a far-right media personality (Mary Margaret Olohan).

This doesn’t not surprise me at all.

I did NOT expect to see someone I knew when I opened this thread.

Strangest family. The Catholic version of the Duggers in some ways. Almost militant about gender roles. The girls knew their job was to get married and have babies. One of his sisters has 12 kids. One niece is a far-right media personality (Mary Margaret Olohan).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s your issue here OP? Other than trying to be as inflammatory as possible? His race/gender/marital status/# of kids is irrelevant to the assault and discrimination he faced.

OP here: why are you assuming I have a problem? I stated the facts of the the case in the thread title.

You were being intentionally inflammatory by stating his race/gender/marital status/# of kids in the thread title. They are not relevant to him being sexually harassed. But you know this and are deflecting now because the thread didn’t go as you intended.

OP basically copied the caption that had been making the rounds in right wing news media about the case.

Anonymous wrote:Well that response is simply a deny everything!

They do admit he worked for Google, that is about it.

That’s incorrect. There is a meaningful, substantive distinction between denying an allegation and asserting that you do not have sufficient basis to confirm or deny the allegation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s your issue here OP? Other than trying to be as inflammatory as possible? His race/gender/marital status/# of kids is irrelevant to the assault and discrimination he faced.

OP here: why are you assuming I have a problem? I stated the facts of the the case in the thread title.

You were being intentionally inflammatory by stating his race/gender/marital status/# of kids in the thread title. They are not relevant to him being sexually harassed. But you know this and are deflecting now because the thread didn’t go as you intended.

Anonymous wrote:Well that response is simply a deny everything!

They do admit he worked for Google, that is about it.

They admit that there is a Google office on 9th Avenue lol 😆

Well that response is simply a deny everything!

They do admit he worked for Google, that is about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is a jerk.

If he was sexually harassed and fired how is he the jerk?

That is not even what the post claims. The story did not say he was fired for retaliation, it says he was fired because his boss told him bizarrely that he “had to fire a white guy”. That doesn’t pass the sniff test.

Anonymous wrote:What’s your issue here OP? Other than trying to be as inflammatory as possible? His race/gender/marital status/# of kids is irrelevant to the assault and discrimination he faced.

OP here: why are you assuming I have a problem? I stated the facts of the the case in the thread title.

Anonymous wrote:What’s your issue here OP? Other than trying to be as inflammatory as possible? His race/gender/marital status/# of kids is irrelevant to the assault and discrimination he faced.

+1. Even white men have rights.

Google responds:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66577374/13/olohan-v-google-llc/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Miller filed a countersuit for defamation?

Her response isn’t due until 2/9.

Is that how her suit would happen? I was thinking his suit wouldn’t be out of the blue so she wpuld have acted while he was making his allegations. Or can defamation only happen if she was harmed (eg Google fired her)?

You can’t really sue for defamation (at least not effectively) until someone makes the defamatory statements. But that aside, I doubt she would assert a counterclaim for defamation unless she already has damning evidence not just that he knows his allegations are false but also of malicious intent. Asserting defamation would turn some burdens of proof on their head, putting them on her as much as him, as opposed to only on him. Not really worth considering how little she likely could claim in damages if she hasn’t lost her job over it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has Miller filed a countersuit for defamation?

Her response isn’t due until 2/9.

Is that how her suit would happen? I was thinking his suit wouldn’t be out of the blue so she wpuld have acted while he was making his allegations. Or can defamation only happen if she was harmed (eg Google fired her)?

Anonymous wrote:Has Miller filed a countersuit for defamation?

R
Her response isn’t due until 2/9.