I can't side with either party right now (due to the lack of facts), but I certainly feel more for Keith than I do the other, anonymous party.
Not really, we're biased to the alleged victim (aka the accuser). Granted, not as much as if it was female but still.
If empathy is a car fueled by how vocal you are in expressing yourself, well... that's not so good.
It's a shakedown - and successful entrepreneurs need to start getting smarter about this shit. We've actually got something to lose now.
Consider the following, which are presumably objectively verifiable facts:
A. Mr. Rabois doesn't name his accuser. If he was looking to inflict damage on them, he'd publicize it.
B. The accuser is seeking a payment of "millions of dollars."
C. The relationship began several months before the accuser's employment with Square.
D. The two came into relatively little contact at work.
These facts all show a high probability that the relationship was consensual, and also give a low probability that the accuser will be able to produce conclusive proof of coercion, such as:
. Texts or emails from the accuser saying Mr. Rabois's advances were unwelcome or made him uncomfortable.
. Evidence that Mr. Rabois gave the accuser job-related threats and/or rewards in exchange for the continuing relationship.
This does not conclusively show, of course, that Mr. Rabois is innocent. Nor does it mean the accuser doesn't have a solid case that will stand up in court. But based on the available information, this does seem to be the likelier outcome.
B. Allegedly.
C. It could easily go bad later, leading to "if we break up I'll get you fired" type statements.
D. An executive of this level has enough power to at least make the threat of punitive actions have weight.
I don't think we have anything to go on beyond a blog post from one of the parties.
(IANAL, I just remember this from an engineering law class)
I absolutely hate seeing innocent people have their reputations and lives trashed by someone who places a false claim against them. Innocent until proven guilty is a good policy to maintain, especially as everyone contorts a story to fit his or her views and agenda.
Given the 4 word response, I thought I'd mention that standards from criminal law will not apply here and that the case will be decided on a balance of probabilities. I don't know this guy but I do hope he gets a fair shake in court.
It's not just criminal law, it's a fundamentally decent way to treat people.
1. Know Keith or the accuser personally, and therefore have the capacity to make an educated guess as to the veracity of the claims?
2. Believe that rich people, well known people, or people with blogs don't have the capacity to do what Keith is accused of doing?
3. Believe the first side of the story you hear in any given situation?
If neither 1, 2, nor 3 is the case, I urge you to not jump to conclusions. There's a human being on the other side of the story.