Former VP sues Insight for Discrimination

Another one.

"Lowry was subjected to a hostile work environment, disparate treatment as compared to male, straight, abled colleagues, and significant retaliation after reporting alleged discrimination and taking approved medical leave. Lowry also alleges that Insight has systematically discriminated against non-male employees for decades, with fewer than 10% of senior employees out of hundreds being non-male."

LinkedIn Post: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7413688066751684608/

On the broader market in general, I think multiple things can be true at the same time:

• It's great that more issues are being brought to light as firms shouldn't feel untouchable
• Anyone and everyone can face discrimination and hostile work conditions in this industry - men, women, white, ethnic minorities, straight/abled or not - ALL of them. Not saying it should happen, but it does.
• Some recent lawsuits are very obvious cash grabs, and tend to paint a picture that the entire system is out to get everyone who isn't a white man (i am not one either) in order to support the narrative. Not saying this is true for this case.

• Despite a slowdown in DEI initiatives, there is a growing sense of entitlement in some historically marginalised communities, to get preferential treatment (which includes equal treatment despite unequal work output) in very competitive and high-pressure environments

  On this case specifically:

• It would be purely speculative to comment on whether or not there was consistent "disparate treatment" and "discrimination"
• However, the lawsuits seems to be focused ultimately on delayed promotions. To me, it doesn't make sense, for instance, that an associate who was worked 1 year and taken 2 years of "protected leave" should get promoted the same time as 3 others who have been grinding for 100hours a week for 3 years.

• Like many other lawsuits, this seems to take "I am [x minority] and I was told I am underperforming" to "Everyone who isn't a white male is being told they are underperforming". And then similar to the 70c pay gap "research", a bunch datapoints are correlated to "prove" structural xism at the firm.

  I appreciate this seems biased, but if anyone knows the specifics, would be great to get an Insight on whether the claims are true.