Paizo - Care to rebuttal?

[David knott 242]

The big problem is that those of us outside the company have no way to know whether any such policies are implemented and/or whether they are adequate for the purpose. At this point we are even fuzzy on the details of exactly how and why the latest situation happened. All we really have to go on is the stellar reputation (from personal experience, in many cases) of the person fired giving us serious doubts about any justification for that action.

[Dave2]

Couple things. First I am not talking about Sarah or the other customer service person at all. I am talking about Jessica and Crystal who mention the cases of multiple abuse. If it is a clear enough case i.e more than hearsay from one employee. Emails, mutiple witnesses to the incident, or mutiple staff having same problem same person then you should go labor board or EEOC. If the case is clear enough you do not need to afford a lawyer. The labor board or EEOC would provide them.

As far as training goes that is never a a bad thing. If it is in relation to an action toward an employee we will not know.

As far as goin on reputation that may not always be a good idea. They may have great public reputation but to the employer and staff it is not that great. They could have mutiple disciplinary actions against them. I am not talking about current or former Paizo staff in this case.

[Tonya Woldridge]

Removed posts relating to the American Civil War and Gamergate as they were tangential to the thread

[The Raven Black]

Dave2 wrote:

Then said employees should go to the labor board and EEOC rather than tweet. They will not get any recourse or affect change based on Tweets. If this has been going on for all these years and been Tweeted about. Not much change has occurred. For those that work go to your HR department and ask them is it better to go through HR first, the Labor Board, and EEOC or Tweet about it. The labor board and EEOC will inquire about if you tried to resolve it internally first.

Also yes refusing to return to work when it is department requirement is grounds for disciplinary action up to termination without medical exception.

Having the legal right to fire someone does not mean it is the sensible thing to do.

And customers have every right to put their money where they want. And to tell people why.

Actually, I find it quite valuable to know why a customer, especially a long-time one, would decide to stop buying my products.

All the people who state why they are canceling their subscriptions love Paizo enough to make the effort.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Tonya Woldridge wrote:

Removed posts relating to the American Civil War and Gamergate as they were tangential to the thread

Side note, good luck in this trying time. I don't envy your current position and hope you get rest / stay safe.

[Tender Tendrils]

I am seeing a lot of people in this thread who straight up don't actually know what hearsay is.

If Jessica said "X person told me that this happened" that is hearsay (hearsay being something a witness heard someone else report).

Almost all of Jessica's statements are things she directly witnessed. They are not hearsay (a witness statement of something they allegedly saw happen directly is not hearsay)

Notably, the american legal system defines a lot of things that are actually very strong evidence as hearsay (documents, emails, and so on).

Basically, hearsay is not "any witness statement" it is "a witness statement about something they heard about happening but didn't witness themselves". It's basically third hand evidence.

Jessica and Crystals allegations are not third hand or hearsay- they are relaying what they (allegedly) directly witnessed.

[Dave2]

They are hearsay if they are the only ones saying it. So if one person says x happened the other person said it did not. No witnesses, emails, or other evidence the it is person x word versus person z word which is hearsay.

[Dave2]

What witnesses did Jessica have or emails? Also if she did have this. Then once again going to labor board or Federal EEOC is more affective way to have a company change. If you are talking about Jason and asking her out one time and retracting that is not harassment. That is his side of the events. She may have different one.

The office cleaning may been issue. But may have been addressed.

As far as the Transgender people rooming with non transgender people. That can be very complex issue.

[Mergy]

It really isn't complex if you remember that trans women are women and trans men are men.

[Dave2]

One thing I will say is having a full time HR staff is very good idea.

[Cori Marie]

Dave2 wrote:

What witnesses did Jessica have or emails? Also if she did have this. Then once again going to labor board or Federal EEOC is more affective way to have a company change. If you are talking about Jason and asking her out one time and retracting that is not harassment. That is his side of the events. She may have different one.

The office cleaning may been issue. But may have been addressed.

As far as the Transgender people rooming with non transgender people. That can be very complex issue.

It really isn't a complex issue. Crystal and Amanda wanted to share a room. This was not allowed by company policy because Crystal was trans.

[thejeff]

Dave2 wrote:

They are hearsay if they are the only ones saying it. So if one person says x happened the other person said it did not. No witnesses, emails, or other evidence the it is person x word versus person z word which is hearsay.

That is absolutely not hearsay.

Hearsay has a legal definition and it is not "one person says something that someone else contradicts".

Legally, it's testimony in court from an witness under oath based on something they heard someone else say. You can testify that they said it, should that be the issue at hand, but you can't treat the statement itself as evidence. (With a handful of specific exceptions.)

Basically, if you want a statement as evidence in court, you want the person giving it to be present under oath and able to be cross-examined, not just someone else's memory of what what was said.

Now, technically none of this is hearsay, since we're not in court, but by extension: Me saying that JP said that Paizo hadn't cleaned the carpets for 7 years is hearsay. JP saying it is not. I'm just repeating what she said. She's talking from personal experience.

[Gerald]

thejeff wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

They are hearsay if they are the only ones saying it. So if one person says x happened the other person said it did not. No witnesses, emails, or other evidence the it is person x word versus person z word which is hearsay.

That is absolutely not hearsay.

Hearsay has a legal definition and it is not "one person says something that someone else contradicts".

Legally, it's testimony in court from an witness under oath based on something they heard someone else say. You can testify that they said it, should that be the issue at hand, but you can't treat the statement itself as evidence. (With a handful of specific exceptions.)

Basically, if you want a statement as evidence in court, you want the person giving it to be present under oath and able to be cross-examined, not just someone else's memory of what what was said.

Now, technically none of this is hearsay, since we're not in court, but by extension: Me saying that JP said that Paizo hadn't cleaned the carpets for 7 years is hearsay. JP saying it is not. I'm just repeating what she said. She's talking from personal experience.

Thanks, Jeff. I was going to have to put my lawyer hat on, but you’ve done a fine job explaining it.

[Catulle]

And as the partner of an NB-trans person, it *really* matters to me.

[Cori Marie]

I've asked multiple times for examples of laws that prohibit trans women from rooming with cis women. Nobody has been able to provide one.

[Catulle]

Also, Al Franken resigned in a rare display of integrity. As should anyone in a position of power who abused that power. If only there were more like him, says I.

[Mergy]

Or, perish the thought, unmarried couples!