Suing would have lots of negative consequences, and few upsides. It would take up months of time, be immensely frustrating, stressful and lead other employers to be wary of you in future (even if most wouldn't admit it). Your name would be dragged through the mud by Uber in an attempt to derail the case, and you'd become an online target for haters (as with Ellen Pao). All for some uncertain monetary reward. Who needs that kind of stress and hassle?

Writing this article (which was superb in its incredulous anger) is a better way to get closure IMO, but this should be her decision alone.

Companies such as Uber will continue these destructive behaviors until they face genuine consequences that impact their bottom line.

You have summarized a number of reasons why I would never ask anyone to volunteer to be the one to accomplish this.

This entire episode will hopefully shine some light on the true difficulties that need to be overcome to promote STEM diversity.

This could lead to genuine consequences, perhaps more than a lawsuit.

Anyway, we shouldn't even be talking about what she is doing, how about the evil actions of Uber?

> Companies such as Uber will continue these destructive behaviors until they face genuine consequences that impact their bottom line.

Having a hard time recruiting is a serious consequence.

If this article catches public attention, Uber will attempt to bring these canons to bear anyway.

They will have less ammunition.

In a suit the defendant can paint the person bringing it as a money grabber (like the people did with the McDonalds hot coffee case.) Someone posting a blog has much less to gain personally, so you just look like a jackass if you try to paint them in a negative light unless they are actually a really bad person.

It's currently the top story on The Verge.

Including a response from Kalanick...That was fast.

HR works for the organisation. It's not there to protect you. Source: work in the HR industry.

This is true, but I should point out that an organization with foresight would not permit harassment of employees, because the long-term cost of the lawsuits and bad publicity will be bad for the organization.

But Uber's entire business plan is about flouting rules and sustainability so that they can become irreplaceable. The sad fact is that they're probably being entirely rational. What's right is often unprofitable, short-term and long-term. Unless they have a big exodus of talent or customers, even a report this embarrassing is unlikely to slow the juggernaut.

That's Uber's strategic focus publically, but HR is an internal department and could conceivably be different, just like how their Marketing team almost certainly doesn't flout (or at least emphasize) flouting of laws.

Working for the organization should also mean avoiding potential lawsuits

Also working for the organization doesn't mean working for that specific middle manager who keeps harassing co-workers.

Yep. No fan of Ellen Pao, but it seems obvious HR did her no favors over at Kleiner Perkins.

Second. The writer and the others should sue, not only to be compensated for their own injuries but to protect others who might be harassed as well.

There are huge professional and personal costs to suing. She has done more by most to protect others by going public. Isn't her job to fix Uber via lawsuit.

Someone needs to do it. It's not any particular person's duty, and she has definitely gone above and beyond by writing this up, but it would be a great public service for someone to bring a (preferably class-action) lawsuit.

Everyone is talking about why she didn't sue. Given the way the courts have ruled recently on binding arbitration, is it possible that she has no recourse to actual courts, just to arbiters? (She never says if such a clause was included in her employment contract, but I know that it has been included in the last two contracts that I signed.) Wouldn't that foreclose her opportunity to sue, and just to go into the much less favorable (for her) arbitration process?

Her choice to write about it might end up being a bigger incentive for change there than a lawsuit.

She tells the story quite well. Probably an ideal story for some journalist(s) to pick up and expand on.

For once, I appear to have guessed correctly :)

Enough impact that Uber is now hiring Eric Holder as a lead investigator.

Uber's employment contract includes an agreement that you won't take them to court.

Wild guess says that companies can't opt themselves out of sexual harassment laws with a simple clause in their contract.

Is that legally enforceable?

Of course not.

I don't know, but it was certainly scary to see.

No.

So when you sue them, you also get fired, if you hadn't quit already. I am pretty confident you'd find a similar clause in any company's employment contract, but even if it wasn't there it would be a safe assumption that any lawsuit brought against a current employer would result in termination.

Suing is great and all, but do you have any idea how hard it is? How much work it is, and how financially and emotionally draining it is? You can't just call up a lawyer, tell them your story, and expect magic justice sprinkles to do the rest. There are retainers to pay, depositions to do, discovery... and the whole process is adversarial _by design_. It's a nightmare. Anyone who's willing to go through it is a goddamn superhero in my book.

Does Uber require employees to sign an arbitration agreement when they join?

Yes

Lawsuits cost enormous amounts of time and effort. A rich company has way more of both than you do.

Or report the incident to your state labour commission.