Microsoft faces $5 billion race discrimination lawsuit.
January 3, 2001 5:35 AM Subscribe
Most black folks I know deal with predjudice or being stereotyped on a regular basis, most of us let it roll off our backs or 'just deal with it'.
Mister Browne is already a millionaire, but something must've happened to make him want to put his comfort and future at risk by joining this lawsuit.
Just because MS was started by a bunch of hippie progressives doesn't mean that culture is even there anymore. I have several friends who are employed at Microsoft and it doesn't sound much different from the place I work.
Why don't you wait for the facts to come out before you pass judgement? You'll have to eat less crow that way if you're wrong.
posted by black8 at 8:09 AM on January 3, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:52 AM on January 3, 2001
So, bottom line, the complainants may be wrong, but I really doubt that I are anything but entirely sincere in their belief that they were wrongfully discriminated against. The likelihood that they're doing this cynically to "gold dig" is pretty slim.
My guess is that the plaintiffs are going to find barrels of evidence that lots and lots of the libertarian / meritocracy-obsessed senior programmers and managers hate affirmative action and fought against programs to hire and promote African American staff for the purpose of diversifying the company.
The question is whether or not the jury will infer from resistance to discrimination in favor of blacks an intention to discriminate against blacks already hired. A lot will turn on the tone of the e-mails that get produced in discovery.
posted by MattD at 8:57 AM on January 3, 2001
(And yes, you may infer from this that I think affirmative action is A Bad Thing.)
posted by ffmike at 9:14 AM on January 3, 2001
I'm not referring to this specific case, but this kind of thinking irks me. If all the employees around you are getting raises of $10,000 and you get $3,000, the first thing to do is make sure you're doing a good job. (after all, it could just be based on merit, the way it's supposed to be)
However, if you are never given a good reason for consistantly making less than the people around you, I think anyone would try to investigate, whether the numbers are $7,000 different or $7,000,000 different.
Just because someone hits the "MILLIONAIRE" level doesn't mean they should sit back and let themselves be screwed. (again, I'm not entering the fray on this specific case, but rather pointing out that the size of the person's wallet means nothing if you're making 1/2 of what your should.)
posted by jragon at 9:34 AM on January 3, 2001
posted by black8 at 9:44 AM on January 3, 2001
posted by cCranium at 10:05 AM on January 3, 2001
The linked article gives the statistics on diversity and they're Not Good -- especially in management.
posted by sudama at 10:16 AM on January 3, 2001
I read a great book that did an academic evaluation of this--they interviewed 100 black Americans, in different positions, different classes, etc. Most of the people interviewed usually questioned their own ideas when they thought others were being discriminatory--"dealing with it" or just denying that it was intentionally racist.
Sure, there are people out there that will sue anyone for anything, to make a buck, like the prisoner that sued Penthouse, but I doubt that employees would bring a discrimination suit unless they really REALLY thought it was warranted. A suit like this can ruin the employees' future careers for life.
posted by gramcracker at 10:42 AM on January 3, 2001
From what I understand from reading the article, Mr. Browne's suit is about being passed over for promotion, not just getting hired. Since he has a track record at the company, it should be easy for MS to prove or disprove the merit of his complaint, right? After all-he's millionaire, so Mr. Browne must've done something right, right?!
Secondly, the article states that MS has been sued over this issue before. This Class Action suit is just something new.
If it were a matter of poor applicants suing 'cause they didn't get into MS, that's one thing.
Current employees doing a good job and getting passed over is something else entirely.
posted by black8 at 10:56 AM on January 3, 2001
posted by tomalak at 11:50 AM on January 3, 2001
posted by Wizzle at 12:37 PM on January 3, 2001
You heard it here first: He don't like no hocus-smokus.
I only wish there was more in the article detailing what's been happening aside from the percentage blacks/whites bit which seems a bit thin.
posted by holloway at 1:08 PM on January 3, 2001
Oh, you're wrong about that. The EEOC thinks it very much is Microsoft's job - and any other company's job - to insure that they have employed at LEAST the percentage of blacks that make up the population in that area, no matter what the company has to do to comply. If not, they put themselves at very serious legal risks. It is an outright quota system.
There was a story about this on 60 Minutes a few years ago. There was this guy that ran a little lamp-making company in some industrial part of Chicago, I think. Every single one of his employees was a minority, most of whom lived within walking distance of the factory. The mix was something like 90% Hispanic and 10% black, no whites save for the owner himself. So a black woman applies for a job, and doesn't get it, for a legitimate reason (I forget what the reason was, someone else was just more qualified, I think). She goes to the EEOC and complains. The EEOC decides that, uh-oh, according to the census figures for his neighborhood, he needs to have ELEVEN PERCENT black employees. So he's labelled as a discriminator, and the EEOC forces him to pay a fine of something over a million dollars. His company is so small that the only way he could afford to pay it was to lay off a whole bunch of his employees (who are all either black or hispanic, remember). Even more ironic was that he was one of the only businesses in the neighborhood, and it was pre-dotcom mania, so there wasn't anywhere else these laid-off workers could easily go. The net result is: his company is decimated, a whole bunch of hard-working minorities ended up having to go back on government assistance ... but at least the EEOC got that "damned evil bigot," eh? That's the important thing, right?
posted by aaron at 11:45 PM on January 3, 2001
The writer implies. The reader infers. Thus ends the lesson.
posted by Optamystic at 11:48 PM on January 3, 2001
posted by sudama at 11:43 AM on January 4, 2001
A computer company I worked at hired 60 people. One was black, one was Indian. Four were female.
There wasn't anything racist or sexist about it. They assessed people's technical skill and hired accordingly. We didn't even interview people and hired entirely on Q/A tests.
I'm sure they'd be guilty though. This story doesn't show examples of anything bad aside from numbers or some guy that should have got a promotion (there's no evidence at all that it's to do with his race aside from ratios and quotas)
posted by holloway at 3:01 PM on January 4, 2001
posted by aaron at 4:53 PM on January 4, 2001
The question is: Did he do a good job? Should he have gotten additional benefits and/or a promotion if he did? (According to the article the answer would be 'Yes' to both questions)
If the answer is 'Yes' to both questions, then the question is: Why didn't he get those benefits and/or promotion? Was it his race? His age? What??
By talking about Affirmative Action and quotas, you impugn Mr. Browne's qualifications and since MS recruited HIM, that's not even in question here.
Is there an assumption that every black person holding a job is there only because of quotas or some government program?
I won't even go into how insulting that is.
Does every black person who calls bullshit on being dealt the short end of the stick have to have a PhD in his field to have any credibility?
(Know what Malcolm X had to say about that?!)
posted by black8 at 3:51 AM on January 5, 2001
People have a right to complain, when they think discrimination exists, this country does not have the best track record when it comes to fair treatment for all people.
posted by passionblack at 11:13 AM on January 5, 2001
However, getting on topic...
>By talking about Affirmative Action and quotas,
> you impugn Mr. Browne's qualifications and
> since MS recruited HIM, that's not even in
> question here.
Uh.. nope, of course it's a question here. All people hired aren't equal (in skills). There are many reasons why he may not have been promoted (maybe the guy's a prat).
I bring up quotas as the linked article shows no proof, and only some "he said, she said", aside from racial distribution inside Microsoft and outside Microsoft.
I'm not defending Microsoft. I haven't a clue as to their policies or how they treat workers. But this article doesn't have any evidence and I'm one of those "innocent 'till proven guilty" types.
I'm willing to be proved wrong though. It'll be interesting to see if there is any substance to their claims.
posted by holloway at 6:41 PM on January 5, 2001
The threadlet I'm participating in is discussing the originally-linked article about the class action suit, not the Browne suit. There's a big difference between one man claiming illegal racist behavior by his immediate peers and supervisors, and an entire group of people alleging a systematic, top-to-bottom culture of institutionalized discrimination that permeates every nook and cranny of the Microsoft behemoth.
And my point was, the Federal Government-imposed racial quota system makes it far too easy for such groups to "prove" such activity merely by tossing around census statistics, rather than showing evidence of actual, intentional discriminatory activity by a company's management.
Now, it could very well be true that such institutionalized racism exists at Microsoft. I've never been inside an MS building (unless you count MSNBC in Secaucus, which isn't really the same thing), so I don't know. But all this article discusses is the allegation, and the usual spin about percentages. We shall see.
posted by aaron at 10:55 PM on January 5, 2001
I assume 'the suit' is on the black guy's side as I doubt if Microsoft would bring that up that statistic (I guess the suit might be a made-up character for the spin). This article did bring up racial percentages inside and outside Microsoft - and within the tech industry.
How is the expectation of a certain amount of each race within Microsoft, not quotas?
posted by holloway at 4:40 AM on January 6, 2001
Well, for universities (which are heavily dependent on the contributions of well-to-do alumni), "legacy" admissions are good business, at least from a revenue-generation standpoint. If you're a rich alum of a university and your kid starts going there, you're more likely to be involved and much more likely to contribute! The side effects of this policy may be undesirable in many ways, but in the revenue column (to many university decision makers, the important column) it's a fantastic policy.
It's the same reasons many schools operate apparently money-losing sports teams (especially football). The effect they have on continuing alumni relations is often worth the supposed loss.
posted by daveadams at 2:18 PM on January 6, 2001
posted by capt.crackpipe at 3:04 PM on January 6, 2001
We are living in the illusion that everything is great, so why are these people complaining. The "I have never had a problem syndrome."
And companies are no different, and its not even a race issue. Women feel it, minorities feel it, and white males who aren't in the in-crowd feel it.
I wish both sides luck in this case. But if Microsoft is found guilty of discrimination. This will be added to the evidence, that some people are still considered second class citizens in this country.
posted by passionblack at 6:54 AM on January 8, 2001
« Older 2001 - The year of new reason? | Send in your votes now! Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Wizzle at 7:26 AM on January 3, 2001