So I've taken the time, because I wanted to inform myself even more about it,
and read the whole complaint which Pearlman filed before the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco. You can too, if you want to, it's free - you just need to solve some captchas upfront.
Pearlman sues Linden Lab for wrongful discharge; that's the core of her complaint.
Upfront a few words: I'm not well versed in American legalese, nor the usual behaviour of American lawyers. What I am talking about now is only the impressions I got after reading the PDF, nothing more, nothing less.
First of all the long list of fields of expertise which is being listed in the file looks impressive; if all certificates are worth something I don't know. I only know that America has the top 10 of the world's best universities, and the worst 500; so it really depends where somebody has got his/her degree from, because the reputation of the university can be important.
If this long list is not in only there due to an advise of Pearlman's lawyer because this is common in the area, than I expect her to be quite convinced about herself. Very much so indeed.
Then there's a long list of occassions, where she wanted to report something and Linden Lab did not listen. This happens in many companies, but let's just say that she did not take this well. I mean getting ignored all the time can be quite frustrating, I do understand that.
More so, her direct superior once should have told her that she is - quote - "too intelligent" and "should dumb it down." This is something which she really seems to have angered her. For me the case it not so clear, because context is king, and she's not delivering the whole context and quote in her complaint.
When I started work in my company and had first contact with the top management, I tended to write quite elaborate emails; until my direct superior told me that I really should write short emails, only mentioning the important, hard facts, due to the work load of the top management, because otherwise I am wasting their time or they just won't read anything - which you can also interpret as "too intelligent" and "you should dumb it down". Those two quotes could also have been told in some kind of similar context, which would be a little harsh wordings perhaps, but with a reasonable case. For me it's vague, because the complaint does not deliver the whole context, it's pretty much unclear for me.
Pearlman was after some time put on a PIP - and she rejected it, because she was convinced that this was undeserved and she was working very well. She doesn't tell if she tried to improve upon what the PIP did contain, just that she continued to "work hard and fulfill her job duties with utmost professionalism", which basically means nothing if she tried to improve, or not. I do presume though not, because she was convinced that it was undeserved and she was anyway doing a great job. Might be that I am wrong, but when an employee receives a PIP, he/she should better take it serious and follow it, or not? Most of them tend to be a real blow to the ego, and some believe it's the first step is an employer wants to get rid of you, but it also means all is still possible - right? So I don't understand her stance on that so much.
Aside that, the case file always describes her as Miss Perfect in every way, she almost did never anything wrong. Then again I presume mistakes would never be admitted/mentioned in such a file anyway, so I guess business is usual before a court. She's also playing quite heavily on the racist/discrimination card, which is no surprise. But why she cames to this conclusion is even after reading all of the file pretty much unclear to me, what her type of evidence is aside that one white man she thinks made even more errors was not treated like she was.
The case management conference by the court by the way is set for 8th of January 2020; so that complaint will be around for quite some time. The amount she demands as compensation according to the sheet is above 25.000 US$.
Anyway, my personal impression after wading all through this and reading between the lines is that she's got an ego of the size of Texas, is really really really much so convinced about herself, is not so much used to working/integrating herself well in a corporate environment ,and that she's living by the saying "It's either my way or the highway"; she only didn't realize who's in charge.
Then again, this is my impression only after reading the PDF - it might be it is partly or entirely wrong; only time will tell.
