No... I'm definitely thinking of type 2.

It doesn't need to be subjective if you encapsulate such commentary into a performance review that the employee is expected to sign. A lot of companies use such regular performance reviews to justify firing somebody within a few months after a negative review (generally just long enough to give the employee time to adjust their work habits to expected levels) or sometimes as a basis to recommend someone for a raise or promotion in the event of a positive review. If the employee tries to deny that it occurred, you can show the court their signature proving that they had been informed about the problem. If the employee wants to dispute the assessment instead of sign it, that is their right... and a more formal sit-down meeting will generally be held within the upcoming week with multiple coworkers and probably a couple of supervisory staff in attendance to discuss the disputed areas. All in attendance at the meeting would act as witnesses if disputes should occur further on, although I've never worked for a company where that has actually happened.

Point being, though... saying the employee didn't do the work they were expected to do doesn't need to be subjective at all.

If you don't think something that can last a whole 2 freaking days is a big deal because they have to keep doing it, I suggest asking someone who has to poke themselves with a needlle 4 or 5 times a day what they think.

One injection every 48 hours is one helluvalot better than having to jab yourself with a needle 4 or sometimes even 5 times in a single day.

Why is an invocation of Godwin modded as insightful?

Where in the comment did you read anything that suggested it would be about licensing? Or were you unaware that Berkeley and MIT are actual, real-world institutions, and it's possible to use those names without necessarily referring to the corresponding open source license.

If it doesn't work, then study *WHY* it doesn't work.... *WHY* are people treated differently based on gender when there is no need to? Address that issue, and you solve the problem. Treating them differently to somehow compensate for how they may have already been treated differently is *STILL* treating them differently.

Instead of trying to compensate for a past that may have been less than ideal, people should concentrate on trying to make the future better than yesterday was.

And if you provide the factual information that they were fired because they were repeatedly late for work, or because they didn't do the work they were iinstructed to do, that too, or even if they simply didn't measure up to the standards you had laid out, that would be just as much of a fact as when they were working for you.

Not because they would lose a lawsuit but want to avoid one in the first place.

I get that... but when you get down to it, really, absolutely *anything* that they say other than "this employee was a good worker", especially if person calling about the reference actually asks a specific question pertaining to that, and the former employer provides what is essentially a non-sequitur answer that clearly reeks of wanting to avoid a lawsuit, which could certainly end up causing the person to not get hired, so the ex-employee could still try to sue them for saying stuff about the former employee that may have finalized the decision with the prospective employer to not hire them. The former employer can be just as damned if they do say something bad as damned if they don't say something good. They won't lose a court case, but would they lose, in court, if the previous employer just said that the employee didn't fit in with their company culture, or some such thing? After all, the employee isn't likely to know exactly what they said about them before filing a lawsuit... at most they would know only that something that they said led to the person not getting hired.

The best way to deal with the problem is to just stop treating people differently based on gender in the first place... perpetuating it by treating them differently to compensate for how they may have been treated differently by others just perpetuates the problem.

"Big Pharma"?

Not really that big... in Canada.

ISPs are legally expected to monitor and rat out their customers for accessing verboten content, ie torrents.

Not that I'm disputing the fact that more than a healthy percentage of torrent downloading is copyrighted content where unauthorized copies (ie, copies for which no explicit permission was ever given to make) are being distributed, but not *ALL* of it is... so who does the ISP "rat out" their customers to?

Would the standard Record of Employment form qualify for that, or is an employer required to personally write a letter stating much of the same information that is already on the employee's ROE?

"In the United States, many girls are brought up to believe that 'girls can't do math' and that science and other 'geeky' topics are for boys," Davidson said. "We break down that idea."

Except, of course, for the fact that by trying to focus attention on how males and females are being treated differently where gender should be irrelevant, they are, in fact, treating the different genders differently when the notion of gender should be irrelevant, which only perpetuates the problem

Are there any explicit laws or precedents that indicate what specifically which data is safe for an employer to divulge that will not be considered incriminating to the character of the employee? I'd like references to them, if possible... If a prospective employer of a former employee of yours calls and asks you what kind of worker they were and you retort with what is essentially a non-sequitur by saying that all you can give are the dates that they worked there, that's going to paint a pretty clear picture that if you say anything else about the employee, you feel like they might try and sue you, and that will still almost universally lead to them not hiring that person (employers tend to shy away from employees who might try and sue former employers for saying something that wasn't false).