And this is literally why people like myself hide my cancer from my employer.
US discrimination laws are a fucking joke.
I don’t know about that. He took like four months off for cancer treatment. And he’s going to need to take more off for more treatment. Not sure how you can hide that from your employer.
3 months. End of October to start of February. It shouldn’t matter though. How long should he have worked there before he’s allowed to? Like if he was CPO for five years and then got cancer, would that have been OK? At what point does it become not ok?
Also he’s got history there and this promotion was due to that. I think they just expected from him to take the reigns on some stuff and then wasn’t there because of the cancer treatment which is 100% understandable. Mozilla isn’t going to collapse in 3 months.
On the day Teixeira returned to his job, it’s claimed, he was instructed to lead a company-wide layoff of 50 people, 40 of whom were in his MozProd organization.
That’s just shit management from above. That is pure retaliation.
Aren’t you allowed to provide a doctor’s note that does not specify the ailment?
Independently on US laws, It’s funny how people in the technosphere still believe that Mozilla are the good guys.
I don’t understand your comment. They are the good guys browser-wise but that doesn’t mean they are good guys everywhere.
They’re not the good guys browser wise, they’re just slightly less shitty than Google, which was (still is probably?) their biggest customer.
Yeah, I’m gonna wait a bit before bringing out the pitchforks.
A plaintiff in a civil suit can allege anything they want, but that doesn’t mean they’re being 100% truthful. Any lawyer will slant the facts as much as possible to make their client look as injured as they can to garner the most sympathy- that’s just lawyering 101. We have his version of events but don’t have Mozilla’s, but the fact that he’s publicly shit-talking the company (rather than let the legal process play out) doesn’t cast him in a good light IMO.
Did you read the article? It seems like they had a plan to make him CEO, he got sick, they quickly found an interim CEO, and the moment he got back:
On the day Teixeira returned to his job, it’s claimed, he was instructed to lead a company-wide layoff of 50 people, 40 of whom were in his MozProd organization.
Followed by:
“Mr Teixeira had ethical concerns regarding the layoffs because they were primarily motivated by a desire to increase profit margins at Mozilla, which was already operating at a profit,” the complaint claims. “Mr Teixeira viewed this as antithetical to Mozilla’s values as espoused on their website: ‘We’re backed by a non-profit, which means we prioritize the interests of people first, not corporate profits.’”
They continue to retaliate against him by denying him bonus, and trying to maneuver him into a demotion. They even had the shitty audacity to say like “well this frees up time for your cancer treatments” which at that point he wasn’t getting anymore.
The complaint claims that Teixeira, appointed in August 2022, helped reverse the decade-long decline of Firefox, which generates about 90 percent of Mozilla’s revenue and is the company’s only profitable product. He’s further credited with growing Mozilla’s advertising business, and AI capabilities, and with reducing investment in the money-losing Pocket service.
Sounds to me like they’re just being really shitty to this guy who has done a lot for the company in general and was on his way to CEO before the poor behavior of these two (Chambers and Chehak).
Yes, yes I did. That doesn’t change anything I said. You’ve only repeated his claims (which his complaint can say literally anything), we don’t have Mozilla’s side, and he shouldn’t be saying a word about this suit to the press.
Yup, I’m guessing there’s some sort of GoFundMe angle here.
That may be warranted, I just want more facts first. People like to play the victim to garner sympathy, and I want to make sure that’s not happening here.
Any decent lawyer will tell you to shut the fuck up once you’ve filed a suit, so as I see it there are three possible scenarios here:
- He’s too stupid to listen to his lawyers.
- His lawyers are too stupid to advise him to shut up.
- They’re trying a public pressure campaign against Mozilla to get Mozilla to capitulate before their case goes too far. They’re hoping that the headlines of “Mozilla hates cancer patients!” will cause enough bad press that Mozilla will want to get the case over with quicker by settling sooner, especially if Teixiera doesn’t have a very strong case.
Yup, 3 is basically what I’m thinking, but potentially with Teixiera looking for money in some way (i.e. maybe getting hired elsewhere?).
But I want to hear Mozilla’s side before really forming that opinion. I’ve heard Teixiera’s side of the story, and I’ve looked into potential motivations, now I want to hear the opposing side to decide which is the simplest explanation.
A plaintiff in a civil suit can allege anything they want, but that doesn’t mean they’re being 100% truthful.
What do you mean!? Accusation = truth. Where did you go to school?
No it doesn’t. Here, let me demonstrate:
I’m accusing you of showing up to my house and kissing my dog (the gay one, not the straight one.)
There. Is that the truth? According to you it must be, because
Accusation = truth
So because it’s true, I demand you restore my dog’s honor by gay marrying him.
And that’s literally how it works in the US. You can make any allegation you want when filing a civil suit and a judge must decide the validity of your claims. Teixiera has given his side of the story when he filed suit; that’s all we can say for certain at this point. He could be 100% right, he could be bending the truth a little bit, or he could be completely lying about the whole thing- we don’t currently have any more information than that.
I hate to say it, but when we’re talking about a leadership position, that hasn’t been filled yet, looking at somebody’s ability to be consistent leader is a factor.
If memory serves this executive was out for treatment, when the previous CEO stepped down in the replacement was chosen.
They simply were not available. It’s hard to be a part-time CEO
A three month period for cancer treatment isnt gonna cause the company to fail. We’ve had people get hired in positions and then take their first like month off on approved leave.
If it’s world war II, and you’re thinking about who to make your overall theater commander, You’re going to put a lot of factors into that, including is this person available.
It wouldn’t make sense to make general Patton your absolute commander, and then have him be unavailable for 3 months.
Double so if they’ve already refused orders
It’s pretty clear they’re trying to fire him to due to not wanting to fire 50 developers.
Mozilla is a for-profit corporation now, there isn’t room for products like Firefox that don’t make money.
That’s a really good point. That’s a good test of an executive, if they can’t do what the board needs… They aren’t a good fit either
if they can’t do what the board needs… They aren’t a good fit either
But does the board need it, or just want it to maximize profits, like boards usually do in their typical chase of infinite growth that isn’t sustainable?
And if the person won’t stick up for what they think is best for the company and the people (which they’ve deemed firing 50 people is that), maybe they’re not a good fit that way. But hey, they are sticking up for said company and 50 people, so maybe they are.
I’m not apologizing. I think this person would make a terrible CEO. For a variety of reasons. The biggest is the fact that they’re going around on a campaign besmirching the company they tried to become the CEO of. That’s an Elon musk move
The only worse choice for CEO is Chambers. She had a valid reason to just fire his ass. If he’s not willing to do what he’s told to do, then he’s not willing to do his job. It looks to me like the board wanted to get rid of him for reasons that had nothing to do with cancer. Why reference the cancer at all?
I have the feeling the only reason they didn’t just get rid of him was because of the cancer diagnosis. Trying to be “nice”. But even if the cancer was the reason for not just cutting him loose, there’s no reason to bring it up.
How does the CEO not know referencing the cancer would expose them to liability? Did they not sit down with their lawyers before sitting down with him?
Now they’re probably going to lose in court and be forced to pay him off.
They should fire Chambers.
I mean it sucks for him, but after having been away for three months with more leave time coming the company probably doesn’t have any obligation to keep him hired.
At least that’s the case here in Switzerland (if you worked for a company long enough) and I’d be surprised if the US had better protections.
