The following paragraph of the article hints strongly that the brother was upset by the 70k/year decision, and that it played some role in their conflict.
"When Dan announced his plan to pay everyone at Gravity Payments a minimum salary of $70,000, Lucas objected, saying he was not informed of the decision until shortly before it was made public. A company spokesman said the lawsuit was filed two weeks after Dan announced the salary plan, which brought the company an unexpected crush of attention."
I didn't mean to "insult you personally": I did express that it seemed like you hadn't read the article but I tried to do so politely. The reason I assumed that it was likely you commented without reading the article is 1) it's hardly a rare behavior in Internet boards, HN included and 2) your comment pretty explicitly reads like someone who thinks that the lawsuit was about the pay raise, when none of the facts of the article support it (though the clickbait headline implies it).
> The following paragraph of the article hints strongly that the brother was upset by the 70k/year decision, and that it played some role in their conflict.
Given how incredibly unrelated the actual complaint in the suit is, it borders on conspiracy theory to assume that a fraudulent suit is being filed as a roundabout way to sue for the salary raise. Especially when the lawsuit would be purely vindictive, since even a legal victory wouldn't address the salary increase at all!! Just because the article is trying to grab clicks with a misleading headline and creating a weak "isn't this suspicious" justification for doing so[1] doesn't mean that I'd expect commenters here to blindly buy it. Thus, the most reasonable explanation for talking about something implied by the headline but completely unsupported in the article was that the headline was read and not the article.
At any rate, sorry for assuming that you didn't read the article, but frankly it seemed like the _less_ insulting assumption.
[1] "nudge nudge, hey he didn't like being kept out of the loop about the raise and he filed a not-remotely-related lawsuit soon after, something fishy is going on here...or at least something that gives us plausible deniability to misrepresent the story"
You asserted with great confidence that the lawsuit was about the $70K salary, when it wasn't at all, as even a cursory glance at the article would've told you. wutbrodo did not insult you personally; he called your comment uninformed, which is pretty indisputably true. You don't really have any grounds to be angry here.
I'm not sure how you drew any conclusions about the lawsuit from the points you're trying to make in this paragraph; in fact I can't see how any of what you're saying has anything to do with the lawsuit? From TFA:
> On Friday, Judge Theresa B. Doyle of Superior Court in King County, in Washington State, ruled that Dan’s brother, Lucas, had failed to prove his claims that Dan had overpaid himself and inappropriately used a corporate credit card for personal expenses.
He wasn't getting sued for paying his employees $70k. It's a short article: you could have read the entire thing in less time than it took you to write an uninformed comment about it.