A CEO might prejudge a person coming from one company to another based on perceived risk to workplace culture the same as when assessing someone just out of school or coming from or into enterprise or out of military service or out of prison or back to the workforce from raising a family or when switching vocations or with gray hair or lip piercings.

Of course it could also be based on direct empirical observation, or just liking to hear the sounds of one's own tweets. On the other hand, the would-you-want-to-work-at-a-company-where position probably falls flat in the case of Uber...it already ate the cake.

Fact: Uber has a well earned reputation for tolerating or even encouraging a work environment that is hostile toward women.

Fact: If you're a male Uber employee, you're somewhat tainted by this association. Maybe just a little, or maybe more.

Conclusion: If you're competing against another candidate who is identical in all other respects except they don't have this association, you're at a disadvantage.

It's not fair to you, but that's the inescapable conclusion.

The bigger question is, do you believe that Uber is ultimately a force for good?

In addition to your salary and benefits, is it important to you that your efforts contribute to making the world a little bit better?

I don't disagree with the potential for it being seen as a disadvantage. I don't think 'I saw it as a force for good' is ordinarily going to dissuade someone who sees it as a disadvantage at best it might be an excuse. The problem with excuses for one's own behavior is that they are often taken as a mark of character (whereas excuses for others' behaviors are often seen as a hallmark of judgment).

> Conclusion: If you're competing against another candidate who is identical in all other respects except they don't have this association, you're at a disadvantage.

How many hiring managers actually care about this? I know it's PC to say that you care, but I doubt it would affect the actual decisions of many managers.