A US administrative labor law judge judge found that software maker Atlassian had illegally fired an engineer after she pushed back against manager layoffs and other policy changes.
> The ruling found that the engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had a federally backed right to make such comments because she made them as part of a collective effort to aid or protect co-workers.
> The judge ordered the company to reinstate Ms. Unterwurzacher to her former job or an equivalent position, and to make her whole financially. It is one of the most significant outcomes in years in a case involving the labor rights of a tech worker.
Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
I am not a lawyer, but if they don't appeal and win, it will set a precedent that they'd (and other companies) have to pay out on any other employees fired for this reason. That will cost them more in the long run.
That's not really true at all. You just think that because you never hear about it. Stare decisis still applies at a trial level, but its scope is obviously much narrower. Moreover, most things really aren't that novel. Most importantly, its quite hard to research on this level and usually pointless because theres usually a higher level case anyway.
You are correctly stating that stare decisis is really just (very) persuasive precedent for the court reconsidering its own decisions, and that it is not binding on other jurisdictions that are not lesser.
But these words belie the fact that stare decisis is largely a social construct for the judiciary. The right case and (very) persuasive argument could and does overcome precedent of any level in any court. It's just a matter of framing this case as "different" enough in a way that your reviewers (whether a higher court or a political concern) will agree with.
It’s depressing how the tech ecosystem works as a self-reinforcing cartel against workers for statusquo preservation. Yes, it’s rational from the tech industry as a whole’s POV, there’s little to no chance a single individual can really stand against such machinery
I think this is a salient point people are missing. This incredible freedom is equal on both sides, just as how companies are able to spread that risk around with multiple employees, it is common these days to have multiple jobs just in case of a layoff or other notable event where your job is lost.
I don’t think multiple jobs is common for salaried full time employees.
Multiple jobs is common for people with hourly employers who are avoiding paying for healthcare benefits and refuse to schedule you for more than 30 hours a week.
Multiple jobs are common for people who are underemployed or for people whose rent has been raised at a faster rate than their pay rate.
Your comment and the parent to your comment are wildly pro-employer biased, in my opinion. The freedom is absolutely not equal on both sides.
If I stop working, my family doesn’t eat and my house gets foreclosed on.
If an employee slacks off for a year or sues their employer or steals from the break room, the employer loses a fraction of a percent of a massive pile of profit (at least, in the case of large employers like Atlassian).
An employer can fire an employee for almost any reason with no consequences. This case is one single time when that wasn’t the case, and the fact that it made national news tells you a lot about how rare an employee winning a judgement like this really is.
I am doing a double take reading your comment and the parent comment of yours. They’re just so wildly corporate-biased.
I’m really not sure how we can conclude that the freedom is symmetrical.
The fact that this story made national news says everything about how rare it is for an employer to win a case like this. In most cases you just get fired for any reason with no notice or off-ramp. The employer is just always correct by default and you can easily be denied unemployment insurance because the company cooked up some official looking documents showing that you were fired with cause.
A corporation can spread risk by having 1,000 employees. I can’t have 1,000 jobs. It’s just not equal on both sides.
I mean, “freedom on both sides,” in a country where there’s zero guaranteed paid parental leave, that’s crazy.
My comments are not "corporate-biased", they are business owner biased, which includes small businesses.
Employment is an free arrangement between two entities, not a modern day serfdom where the employers are now responsible for their serfs housing, food, etc.
Small businesses definitely feel a squeeze that bigger companies don’t, but they’re not saints to be put on a pedestal, either.
We can’t exactly say this isn’t a serfdom in a country where the majority of people depend on employer benefits to get access to affordable healthcare.
In that regard, small businesses get a ton of carve-outs. For example, they don’t have to pay healthcare benefits to full time employees. They are exempt from a slew of regulations targeted at larger businesses.
I don’t really have the same reverence for small businesses that a lot of people do. They’re just companies. Some are good, some are bad. When you work for one, there’s still a power distance between you and the owner.
The power balance is tilted heavily towards employers though, no? If I quit you still have things like income and health care. If you fire me, not so much.
Yes, indeed: the rich and poor alike have freedom from being allowed to sleep under bridges.
Come on; there are such obvious imbalances of power here that "each side has incredible freedom" is blatantly misleading.
On the one hand, you have each individual software engineer (because heaven forbid we should ever join unions! Those are for people who aren't A+ 10x alpha coders and negotiators, amirite?), every one of whom needs a salary so they can afford food, clothing, shelter, etc.
On the other hand, you have a group of the most wealthy and powerful countries the world has ever seen, who openly work together, have the ear of the flagrantly-corrupt president, and could coast on their cash reserves for, in some cases, many years even if every single customer decided to boycott them all at once.
And you think that "each side has incredible freedom" is a meaningful statement here...?
Only if customers don’t care about your labor practices. For me this story screams “Don’t Use or Recommend Atlassian - in fact, strongly advise against it.”
No reason stated is trickier if the employee shows a timeline/cause and effect then gets discovery in court. Also, firing for no reason would not be very believable in itself compared to a timeline.
This is why employers even get extra careful in some situations where they have cause but also potential legal issues.
In these cases where they have to rehire someone, does the employee usually stay after? Wouldn't the workplace be kinda hostile now with the manager who fired you?
I don't know about other companies, but I don't really interact with my manager outside of 1 on 1s like once a quarter. Also, it's never his choice to fire someone, it's always from above. I'm sure if he was forced to lay someone off he'd be just as happy as they are to have them back.
That sounds like a nightmare. Aren't iterations 2 weeks? What is happening on a weekly basis that a manager needs to check in that often? How do they have time to do that with with 10+ subordinates?
My 1 on 1s are like, have I made enough progress in the last 6 months to get a raise or not. That answer isn't changing week to week.
Yeah I can't imagine that playing out particularly well. Maybe at a company as large as Atlassian it is feasible enough to stay isolated. But I'd think the relationship is tainted from both sides at this point and doesn't favor either party.
Unlikely it was the person's direct manager who made the call to fire them. I would normally assume this person won't be up for a promotion for a long time. And they'd need to do everything by the book going forward.
On the other hand they've shown everyone they have backbone and that Atlassian ss petty and engages in illegal retaliation. So the company may be forced to be on its best behavior with this person in the future.
In this particular case I'd argue that the workplace is indeed going to be very hostile, and appropriate reparations here would not be to rehire, but a fat compensation package for unfair dismissal.
Many worker relations ombuds around the world has procedures for exactly this scenario.
Hell, I reckon the majority of 'illegal' firings does not result in rehiring the injured party.
I mean... yes? A company pays you to work. If you are using company resources, during company time, to attack your company... why exactly would they keep you employees? She was warned multiple times. It's quite amazing this court let this happen at all.
If an employee of yours spent hours every day attacking you.... would you keep them employed? Why not?
> The company terminated her in June 2023 after two more incidents, including a sarcastic allusion to an Atlassian founder’s partial ownership of the Utah Jazz basketball team. “Just dialling in from my NBA team’s headquarters to yell at the people whose careers I’ve just pummelled,” she wrote.
Yeah this comment seems rude and without much substantive value. I would not want someone with this attitude and sense of decorum to work at my company, regardless of whether I believed in the causes that they advocated for. It's just a cheap shot, and not especially funny or insightful.
The company claims they had rules against this type of comment, and that's why she was fired:
> Atlassian argued that it had fired Ms. Unterwurzacher for violating company rules that require employees to behave civilly and avoid ad hominem attacks against one another.
Seems like a case like this could be overturned on appeal, if what they say is true. Also depends on what else she said, which the article doesn't mention.
Atlassian was extremely foolish. Obviously you want to fire someone who makes unprofessional comments like that on the company Slack, but you don't explicitly fire them for that, you find some other defensible reason to do it.
thats something i've wondered too, but as a long time jira user i'd rather foss contribute to something better designed (both code and ux-wise) than rehash the mess of ux anti-patterns of jira... just my 2c
I got downvoted for posing the possibility that the atlassian ceo actually is a ‘rich jerk’ and that his retaliation towards this employee was evidence of the statement itself.
I guess I’ve been vindicated. I’ll be accepting apologies.
46 comments
[ 1.4 ms ] story [ 33.4 ms ] thread> The ruling found that the engineer, Denise Unterwurzacher, had a federally backed right to make such comments because she made them as part of a collective effort to aid or protect co-workers.
> The judge ordered the company to reinstate Ms. Unterwurzacher to her former job or an equivalent position, and to make her whole financially. It is one of the most significant outcomes in years in a case involving the labor rights of a tech worker.
Atlassian said it planned to appeal the ruling, however.
I think it'd be cheaper to keep her at this point. I'd tell your lawyer's egos to take a chill pill.
But these words belie the fact that stare decisis is largely a social construct for the judiciary. The right case and (very) persuasive argument could and does overcome precedent of any level in any court. It's just a matter of framing this case as "different" enough in a way that your reviewers (whether a higher court or a political concern) will agree with.
Employees can take up a huge amount of resources and then leave before costs are recovered.
Multiple jobs is common for people with hourly employers who are avoiding paying for healthcare benefits and refuse to schedule you for more than 30 hours a week.
Multiple jobs are common for people who are underemployed or for people whose rent has been raised at a faster rate than their pay rate.
Your comment and the parent to your comment are wildly pro-employer biased, in my opinion. The freedom is absolutely not equal on both sides.
If I stop working, my family doesn’t eat and my house gets foreclosed on.
If an employee slacks off for a year or sues their employer or steals from the break room, the employer loses a fraction of a percent of a massive pile of profit (at least, in the case of large employers like Atlassian).
An employer can fire an employee for almost any reason with no consequences. This case is one single time when that wasn’t the case, and the fact that it made national news tells you a lot about how rare an employee winning a judgement like this really is.
I’m really not sure how we can conclude that the freedom is symmetrical.
The fact that this story made national news says everything about how rare it is for an employer to win a case like this. In most cases you just get fired for any reason with no notice or off-ramp. The employer is just always correct by default and you can easily be denied unemployment insurance because the company cooked up some official looking documents showing that you were fired with cause.
A corporation can spread risk by having 1,000 employees. I can’t have 1,000 jobs. It’s just not equal on both sides.
I mean, “freedom on both sides,” in a country where there’s zero guaranteed paid parental leave, that’s crazy.
Employment is an free arrangement between two entities, not a modern day serfdom where the employers are now responsible for their serfs housing, food, etc.
We can’t exactly say this isn’t a serfdom in a country where the majority of people depend on employer benefits to get access to affordable healthcare.
In that regard, small businesses get a ton of carve-outs. For example, they don’t have to pay healthcare benefits to full time employees. They are exempt from a slew of regulations targeted at larger businesses.
I don’t really have the same reverence for small businesses that a lot of people do. They’re just companies. Some are good, some are bad. When you work for one, there’s still a power distance between you and the owner.
Yeah, no corporate bias here whatsoever
Come on; there are such obvious imbalances of power here that "each side has incredible freedom" is blatantly misleading.
On the one hand, you have each individual software engineer (because heaven forbid we should ever join unions! Those are for people who aren't A+ 10x alpha coders and negotiators, amirite?), every one of whom needs a salary so they can afford food, clothing, shelter, etc.
On the other hand, you have a group of the most wealthy and powerful countries the world has ever seen, who openly work together, have the ear of the flagrantly-corrupt president, and could coast on their cash reserves for, in some cases, many years even if every single customer decided to boycott them all at once.
And you think that "each side has incredible freedom" is a meaningful statement here...?
Only if customers don’t care about your labor practices. For me this story screams “Don’t Use or Recommend Atlassian - in fact, strongly advise against it.”
To me this reads as: Atlassian says it doesn’t want customers.
Happy to oblige. Our $100 million startup moved off Atlassian recently, and we couldn’t be happier.
No reason stated is trickier if the employee shows a timeline/cause and effect then gets discovery in court. Also, firing for no reason would not be very believable in itself compared to a timeline.
This is why employers even get extra careful in some situations where they have cause but also potential legal issues.
My 1 on 1s are like, have I made enough progress in the last 6 months to get a raise or not. That answer isn't changing week to week.
On the other hand they've shown everyone they have backbone and that Atlassian ss petty and engages in illegal retaliation. So the company may be forced to be on its best behavior with this person in the future.
Many worker relations ombuds around the world has procedures for exactly this scenario.
Hell, I reckon the majority of 'illegal' firings does not result in rehiring the injured party.
I recognize how horrid this is, but I don't want to be a victim.
If you don't want to be a "victim" here simply don't fire people for making those comments.
If an employee of yours spent hours every day attacking you.... would you keep them employed? Why not?
Random HN comment:
> her comments were unprofessional and she has no right to distract the company.
Same User:
> y Downvote :(
Yeah this comment seems rude and without much substantive value. I would not want someone with this attitude and sense of decorum to work at my company, regardless of whether I believed in the causes that they advocated for. It's just a cheap shot, and not especially funny or insightful.
The company claims they had rules against this type of comment, and that's why she was fired:
> Atlassian argued that it had fired Ms. Unterwurzacher for violating company rules that require employees to behave civilly and avoid ad hominem attacks against one another.
Seems like a case like this could be overturned on appeal, if what they say is true. Also depends on what else she said, which the article doesn't mention.
If you have a better design lets see it please.
I guess I’ve been vindicated. I’ll be accepting apologies.