And of course the article doesn't mention she lost the lawsuit.

This is such an astute observation. If you take an article about individuals or companies the media loves to denigrate, they will take every opportunity to not only mention other negative things but cross link to every previously written negative story they've published, sometimes to the point where half an article is referenced to many of the past negative things.

This was related to the article. It paints her as if she's proved how systemic sexism caused her to lose her job, but she failed to lose that in court. In fact, it's the opposite - as far as I'm concerned the court showed that she was either making things up or blowing them way out of proportion.

You can't just conveniently leave that out.