I don't know legally how it works, but my gut says if this is found to be a wrongful termination under state/local/FMLA, then it also stands to reason that this could also be a wrongful death. From 1960, but it covers this line of thinking wrt suicide: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
Thank you for finding this, really helpful. I checked PACER and didn't realize it was filed in state court instead.
The complaint is speaking and it is aggressively written and, to my non-lawyer mind, pretty well drafted. If I were Mongo, I would be trying aggressively to settle this and make it go away.
If I were the parents, I would be trying very hard to force any other outcome, preferably one where Mongo pays the biggest public relations price possible for what they've done, assuming the allegations are true.
The way Mongo answers the complaint will be really instructive in figuring out how they intend to play this, and in whether they think there is some explanation that will make this seem less dire.
Unfortunately, it’s not as strong a case as you’d think. One of three cases has to be true: either she was disabled and unable to work, disabled but able to fulfill job duties, or not disabled at all.
In the first case Mongo can likely fire her once FMLA is up (notice that the termination is 12 weeks after she started leave). Disabilities aren’t protected if they leave you unable to perform job duties, which is what Mongo will claim. Notice how the complaint tries to say additional leave is “reasonable accommodation”. Mongo will claim not working at all means you’re not fulfilling job duties and that she used up her FMLA.
In theory if you become unable to do your job due to disability you should get disability insurance, which is mandatory in NY, but it sounds like Prudential rejected the claim, hence the letter from the doctor there.
In the latter two cases, then Mongo will claim that she could come back to work and asking her to was not violating any ADA laws, and that they would have been willing to make e.g. scheduling accommodations for any treatments and so on to accommodate a disability that doesn’t prevent her from fulfilling core job duties.
If you’re doing a restructuring of the company, i.e. mass layoffs, you’re allowed to do it regardless. In some states FMLA/PFMLA a company is automatically presumed a retaliation firing if it’s done within 6 months and the onus is on the company to prove it wasn’t—-the mass layoff is the cover, and large companies know it.
However, the fact that they cancelled her health insurance a week before returning and demanded she returned on a certain date or she’d be terminated despite a demonstrated disability, that’s pretty whack and might be hard to defend as company-wide restructuring.
But on Sept. 13, 2024, she attempted suicide again with the same lethal drug “citing the shame she felt at being fired by MongoDB,” according to the lawsuit.
Surman apparently regretted the decision and called 911 herself — but died on the way to the hospital.
Mongo later backtracked on an offer to retrieve Annie’s life insurance policy for the family, who believe the company fired Annie right before a mass layoff to avoid paying her severance, according to the suit.
MongoDB's behaviour just seems more and more callous...
From their site: 'Employee mental health and wellbeing is another core focus at MongoDB. It’s important for us to help break the stigma around mental health and provide our employees with the support they need, especially at work. We are dedicated to providing our employees with valuable tools to face all of life’s challenges and offer mental health programs that provide confidential assistance from qualified professionals.'
I worked at a smallish startup where on the wall behind reception in huge raised letters. The owner had installed "company values" like trust accountability, ect. It was referred to internally as the "wall of lies" rather thab reception or lobby. The owner was a total sociopath.
And perhaps a controversial take but consider the counterfactual: Should it be illegal to fire employees that recent took mental health leave? Get a bad review or put on a PIP? It's already becoming a common strategy to immediately take mental health/sick leave.
> Should it be illegal to fire employees that recent took mental health leave?
In civilized countries it is illegal to fire someone on sick leave, and I highly doubt you’d get a permit to fire someone who just got back from sick leave.
I've taken mental health leave (not due to a PIP) and my productivity before and after was significantly different. It was great for my employer that I took it. I'm quite sure I would've eventually ended up with a PIP if I hadn't taken it sooner myself, and the best remedy on a PIP would have been to take mental health leave. Not as a strategy as such, but literally because it would have been the best solution (and I think the only one).
Yes, exactly. Taking mental health leave should be seen as a positive step: an opportunity to overcome whatever difficulties you've been facing, leading to - amongst many other benefits - better performance at work.
Mental health problems are tricky; they tend to creep up on us gradually, and often some form of external trigger is needed in order to prompt us to seek help. So it shouldn't be at all surprising that an employee in receipt of a PIP might take mental health leave as part of a genuine effort to improve their situation.
gp's cynical "counterfactual" suggests that they view PIPs as being purely a sham, intended to always result in dismissal rather than improved performance. Now, that might occasionally be true - but we should be blaming the abusive employer (who is likely acting outside the law) in that situation, not the employee.
> Should it be illegal to fire employees that recent took mental health leave?
It's not legal to fire an employee on a sick leave in our country. They have to come back to work and then you can fire them. The employer is not paying their wage during the sick leave anyway, they get money from the social and health insurances. So there is very little downside for the company to keeping the employee employed. And if they employee is somehow faking it, that's an issue to check for the insurance companies.
> It's already becoming a common strategy to immediately take mental health/sick leave.
Maybe the companies should ask themselves very hard why this is happening.
Here's another controversial take: as long as healthcare is tied to employment, companies shouldn't be allowed to fire someone except for actual negligence / malice. If they suck at their job, find them another one at the company -- there has to be something they can do in a company of 5k employees.
On the other hand, it may end up the other way: pressure you or bully you into quitting yourself. Here in Spain it happens sometimes: firing you is expensive and they don't want you around for whatever issue, so they'll try to find any justification to fire you, or just pressure you in some way on another to make you miserable enough to quit. No doubt that would happen in the US.
This can easily backfire on the employer with discrimination, hostile workplace, and a variation on wrongful dismissal lawsuits.
From Wikipedia:
From a legal standpoint, it occurs when an employee is forced to resign because of intolerable working conditions which violate employment legislation, such as:
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA)
Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA)
Change in schedules in order to force employee to quit (title 12)
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 (GINA)
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII)
It would take significant change to multiple parts of federal legislation and that in many states with additional worker protection laws.
To succeed on a claim for constructive discharge, you must be able to prove at least three elements:
Your employer was trying to force you to resign by intentionally and knowingly creating an employment environment that was intolerable and aggravated;
This unbearable, hostile workplace gave you no choice but to resign; and,
Your employer was motivated to get rid of you for illegal, retaliatory or discriminatory reasons.
so you have guaranteed employment for life with the same company? that is about as radical as it gets. this would shoot the unemployment through the roof if I, as a business owner, am unable to fire anyone that I hire! health insurance or not, that is to radical for even the most "social" country in existence (or that previously existed)
You're uninformed. France has that, and it doesn't result in excessive unemployment; in fact, the unemployment rates in France and in the US are practically the same, respectively 7.5% vs. 7.8%.
What changes between the countries is the hiring procedure.
US and UK companies mostly use a "hire anyone, keep the slightly useful ones for as long as they seem slightly useful, fire everyone else, fire them too, wash, rinse, repeat" narcissistic-sociopathic trial-and-error pseudo-method that's just guesswork dressed up as "choice".
French companies, and those in countries with similar preferences, take their time to very seriously vet the people they're hiring with a focus on the long term, and do it right from the start, following scientific hiring methodologies that leave little to no space for guesswork and gut feelings.
The result for the company is the same: the proper employee, at the proper position, doing the proper job the company needs.
The result for the employee is that the first "method", being as it is narcissistic-sociopathic, promotes unnecessary human suffering with zero actual benefit to anyone, whereas the second promotes well-being, satisfaction, and good work-life balance.
And, again, unemployment rates don't vary between them.
Now, if you believe your company would do badly under this system, maybe it would indeed. Which only goes to show you don't know how to hire properly. Start hiring better, and it'd make zero difference for you whether you're in a system or the other. In fact, start hiring better, and you may even move ahead compared to your narcissistic-sociopathic competitors, since then they will be the ones going with simple trial-and-error, while you will get the right employees from the start, and without regrets.
> You're uninformed. France has that, and it doesn't result in excessive unemployment; in fact, the unemployment rates in France and in the US are practically the same, respectively 7.5% vs. 7.8%.
You might want to expand that to the youth unemployment rate.
> Youth Unemployment Rate in France decreased to 18.90 percent in October from 19 percent in September of 2025. Youth Unemployment Rate in France averaged 20.52 percent from 1983 until 2025, reaching an all time high of 28.20 percent in November of 2012 and a record low of 14.50 percent in February of 1983.
While the overall unemployment rate may be similar, the "hire them once and have to take exterodary action to fire them" significantly impacts the employment rate of college new graduates where it can be difficult to identify how well they actually work in the work force.
> ... High unemployment, especially for young immigrants, was seen as one of the driving forces behind the 2005 civil unrest in France and this unrest mobilized the perceived public urgency for the First Employment Contract. Youths are particularly at risk as they have been locked out of the same career opportunities as older workers, contributing to both a rise in tensions amongst the economically disenfranchised underclass, and, some claim, a brain drain of graduates leaving for better opportunities in Britain and the United States.
Good points. But notice that, if the overall unemployment rate is the same, and in one country there's higher unemployment rate for youth compared to another, this means in the other there's higher unemployment rate for older workers compare to the first. The question then becomes: which is worse, more unemployed youth people, or more unemployed mature/elder people?
I'd argue more unemployed mature/elder is worse. Mature people in an at-will system don't become younger over the years to start finding better and better opportunities, rather their prospects become worse as time goes by. Conversely, young people become mature and find more and more opportunities as they age, so long-term not-at-will systems favor everyone, at the cost of making the start more difficult.
In both the corresponding difficulties can be reduced via welfare. But at-will systems tend, or at least it seems so to me, I may be wrong in this, to provide worse welfare, which may add weight to the comparison.
You can get the overall unemployment by demographic breakdown at https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpseea10.htm (this also gets into how do you count unemployment https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm - the reported numbers tend to be the U-3 rate, but people also like to quote the U-6 rate if they want bigger numbers ... the demographic numbers are likely based on the U-3 rate).
The United States is currently showing 4.1% for 20 and over with the 20-24 range at 8.3% and 25 and over at 3.7%.
United States by that measure is 4.6% while France is 7.7%. For the US at 7.8% would be the U-6 number which includes everyone working a part time job.
> U-6 Total unemployed, plus all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all people marginally attached to the labor force
> The unemployed under the International Labour Office (ILO) definition comprise all working-age persons (conventionally those of at least 15 years of age) that 1°) during the reference week had no employment, even for one hour, 2°) were available to start work within the next two weeks and 3°) had actively sought employment at some time during the previous four weeks or had found a job due to start within 3 months.
Note the "even for one hour" means that comparing it to the U-6 rate is inappropriate. So comparing it to the U-3 (4.6%), U-4 (4.9%) or U-5 (5.6%) would be more correct.
----
With that in mind, I would urge you to reconsider your comparison about how increasing the difficulty to fire someone impacts employment.
Furthermore, there's only one state in the US that is not at will... Montana.
> Montana is the only state that is not an at-will employment state. In Montana, employers must have a valid reason for terminating an employee, and employees can only be fired for just cause.
However, that is "just cause" not "have to attempt to find another position for them at the company before they can be fired."
Comparing employment stats for Montana (45th state by population) may be difficult to compare with other states. https://montanafreepress.org/2018/11/17/where-the-jobs-are-m... -- would you compare the unemployment Mato Grosso do Sul to the rest of Brazil - and would you be able to attribute employment stats there to one difference in employment law vs the rest of the country?
> French laws don’t recognize at-will employment. In France, you can’t simply dismiss an employee without reason. In fact, the French labor code makes it extremely clear that it considers termination to be an absolute last resort, especially in cases of voluntary or involuntary personal grounds for dismissal. Instead, it encourages employers to try to find other ways to resolve the problem. For example, let’s say the employee in question is having serious interpersonal issues with their manager or a coworker. You can only dismiss them after you’ve tried everything else, such as holding a meeting in which you talk to the two of them and try to find a solution, or by putting them on different projects so they don’t have to work together directly. If the company is putting technological changes in place to increase its competitiveness, before you can start the dismissal procedure, you must demonstrate you tried another course of action, such as redeployment or employee training.
> Everything must be documented. This is extremely important: You must document evidence of all events and/or incidents that led to the dismissal of the employee, even if the reasons have nothing to do with their conduct specifically. You’ll use this evidence both during the interview when you’re telling the employee why they’re being dismissed and should also keep it in case the employee decides to bring a lawsuit against your company.
---
If someone is having difficulty with their job, you first provide them training before you can fire them. From what I understand, it has to be a "we tried everything for the past year, here's all the documentation and they're still unable to do the basic requirements for the position.
> companies shouldn't be allowed to fire someone except for actual negligence / malice
France sure does a lot of things right here but above is what OP stated that I commented on which isn't the case for France. While one might have to go through some additional paperwork / procedures / ... you can in fact fire an say an underperforming employee
True, if you prove they're in fact a completely underperforming employee. Notice this is not only for the position they're in at the moment, but for every other conceivable position they might be reassigned to before the conclusion becoming it's impossible to keep them and the company positively, absolutely, needs to hire someone else for their place.
For absolute unfireability, there are countries where government employees cannot be fired no matter what, but that's not private employment so it doesn't count for your question.
The closest to that for private employers, that I know about, was Japan before the 1990's economic crisis, in which the culture (not the laws, but the culture was strong enough for it to be the same in practice) prevented companies from firing employees. If an employee became useless, the company assigned them a desk and nothing to do. After a few weeks of this the not-fired employee felt so ashamed of being paid for doing nothing 8 hours a day, they themselves asked to be let go (which was also the expected cultural thing for them to do, so they did it).
Regardless, the point is that at-will employment vs not-at-will employment doesn't affect things as much as it seems to do. And if you look at statistic comparing US States that don't have at-will employment vs those that have it, there's no practical difference either.
Sounds like the kind of thing a union or works counsil could help with: enforcing a fair policy. That and revisiting the concept of at-will employment.
If neither option satisfies, we must go up the stack. There is something seriously wrong with a society that drives educated, productive adults to suicide.
The US is somewhere in the middle, right there with some European countries. It's hard to say what drives people over the edge. Surprisingly Uruguay is high up there but Uganda, Ghana and Colombia are low.
Better way to look at it: why are people so afraid of losing their job, and how do we reasonably remove the fear of losing one? Denmark may provide some good guidance here, as they have a good balance between social welfare and protections and fostering a robust business environment
I suspect a major way for the U.S. would be the one mentioned in the article: make it so that losing your job doesn't mean losing your health insurance. That's a major additional stressor, particularly if someone loses their job because of an illness.
Of course, there's about a negative one thousand percent chance of something like that passing in the current political climate.
> An employer is prohibited from discriminating or retaliating against an employee or prospective employee for having exercised or attempted to exercise any FMLA right.
You can fire someone after they come back but you will need to show receipts. Your employer also doesn't pay you when you take that leave so it would be a strange way to game the system.
I know people who upon getting put into a PIP took a mental health leave as it took them over the PIP time horizon. The mileage you get from this will vary on organization —some won’t want the reputational hit, others won’t care though.
There will always be people who abuse the system, no matter what system you have.
The solution is not to burn down all systems and just wild west everything. No. The solution is to anticipate the fraud, and build it into your margins and planning. Recognize it will always happen. And, in fact, the optimal amount of fraud is never zero. Because preventing fraud, too, has a cost, and it grows exponentially.
>Should it be illegal to fire employees that recent took mental health leave?
Yes, at least for companies the size of MongoDB
Didn't need much ruminating to come to that answer, but I lack the sociopathic behaviors necessary to run a corporation in the American legal environment.
"""
When she arrived at the hospital and learned that Annie had died, Ms. Connolly
collapsed and screamed non-stop for hours. Hospital staff placed Ms. Connolly in a separate room
for observation, and the doctor who declared Annie dead had to speak to other family members
about what had occurred because Ms. Connolly could not bear to speak to him or to see Annie’s
body.
88. Mr. Surman was alone in the back of a taxi to the airport when he received the call
that Annie had died. He could hear his wife’s screams in the background while he was helpless to
comfort her. He sobbed through his redeye flight to join Ms. Connolly.
"""
Reading the complaint, I don't see any way in which the company is not responsible for this. The about turn in requiring her to come back in couple of weeks or else be terminated is just cruel. Now, I know what companies can be like, and especially if they're doing layoffs, things can get quite bonkers. But ultimately, the responsibility rests with the company: like it or not, an employer in America is responsible for their healthcare, which means you need to be careful when dealing with what happens when you suddenly end it.
Corporations are drivin solely by increasing profits for shareholders. Anything else is just for show or compliance with law, and even that is rare because the fine is almost always miniscule in the grand scheme of things.
I feel sorry for this woman. Meta did this to me because they're discriminatory dicks, so I know how she felt. Fortunately, I have a tremendous amount of family support.
Companies are made of people. Companies only use people if the people who make up the companies are ok with it. Being a decisionmaker in a company doesn't give you carte blanche to behave like an amoral automaton.
So no, MongoDB are assholes for doing this. They could have had some humanity and prioritized human well-being over cost savings.
I did not say MongoDB weren’t being assholes here. I’m saying asshole behavior is the norm and should be expected. I have an excellent boss (and his boss is fantastically supportive too). Several coworkers have needed leave for sometimes weeks and they have accommodated them. I don’t expect this is the norm or written in our company policies.
I disagree, if you expect asshole behaviour, you make it the norm. Expect the behaviour you want, and complain when the standard isn't met. That's how you raise the bar.
It works in the US too. Workplace organizing is at its highest rate in decades right now. I’m not saying it’s easy but it will only continue to be a rule if it is never challenged.
If companies operated as partnerships instead of limited liability companies, then I guess I could buy into this.
But states grant special privileges of capping personal liability for investors. Perhaps states should rethink the conditions for granting this if too many companies act like Gordon Gecko psycho paths.
The British East India company had its charter revoked once it started stepping over red lines. Voters need to reconsider the cart-blanche granting of privileges to corporate entities.
I wish someone had sat me down and told me this as a teenager, especially with the addendum that anything about "family" in business descriptions is nothing more than bullshit/marketing.
I wonder if this should be the case. The state consists of it's voters and it's voted representatives. Companies and the economy in general, are secondary entities (unless you really treat them as people, which opens a whole can of worms, see PACs etc), and a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
As such, yes, be pro-economy, but don't forget the people having to live in that society.
Trying to force companies to keep people longer than they want is how the social safety net works in some places (like Japan) and it's how the US healthcare system works, but both of those are, like, bad.
It's better to make it easier to quit and find a new job and support people in the meantime. Denmark as an example.
But to do this you have to have other ways to push people to stay productive.
That's part of it, I'm not saying that companies should keep employees past their usefulness, I'm saying government intervention should be pro-citizen first, and pro-economy second (ideally the latter is a logical consequence of the former). Currently it seems like it's companies first, and workers maybe third to last, but only because companies still need workers (and they try really hard to make those obsolete too).
That results in profit maximizing for the few who made it to the carpet floors, and nothing for the rest. It's become too extractive, and short sighted.
And yes, one of the government interventions that is pro-citizen could be better retraining programs, which are beneficial to companies too, but that's not the goal, it's to give people a motivation, and a sense of accomplishment, and part of the society.
More important one in the US is that unemployment insurance, which is designed to help workers at the expense of companies, is badly designed and a large disincentive to hire people.
IMO, there should be a balance. My brother lives in Europe and it seems every time he has a small ache/cold he can go to the doctor and get a note for a couple of days off. On the other hand, companies here in the US expect you to be at work unless you’ve been hit by a bus.
if you are in pain, you need to rest. period. there is no other option. of course the system can be gamed simply because pain can't be measured objectively, at least not without expensive machinery. a cold can be infectious. i don't want people to come to work with a cold.
I like this post where you agree with the person you’re replying to and then imagine somebody posting “Wow this was so unexpected because my worldview does not have room for companies to be mean, can somebody explain this??” and calling out that imaginary poster for being naive.
>>"...She asked for an extension to complete her treatment, or at the least a short period to consult with her medical providers about whether and how she might be able to return to work before the treatment was completed. .."
>>"An extension of Annie’s leave would have cost MongoDB nothing. We made it clear that they did not need to pay her or hold her job open for her. We just asked them not to fire her while she was in such a vulnerable state, as we feared that would result in tragedy. We just wanted a little more time to get her stabilized."
There is no plausible need of management that would outweigh simply letting someone stay on the books as "employed-on-unpaid-leave" for some extra weeks or months.
Whoever did this should be held personally responsible for negligent harm.
And yeah, never touching their software, IDGAF how useful it is.
It’s already normal and has been for a long time. Defeatist? No, people who have mortgages to pay and families to feed can’t be martyrs for workers’ rights. You want to change it, I’m not opposed, but you make it sound simple/easy.
Continually acknowledging it renews its legitimacy as the status quo. Who said anything about families or mortgages? The tech industry has plenty of single mobile renters; we can make change by having a little faith in each other.
The first step is for you to get your head out of the sand and look around. Jobs are scarce unless you're knee-deep in ML/AI. You're talking like a naive, idealistic, young person. I'm long past any of those attributes and I do have a family and a mortgage. Sure you can move to Europe, workers have more rights...and they earn a hell of a lot less than we do here in the USA (my brother lives in Europe.) And even there companies try to employ contract workers so they have more "flexibility".
HN is known for its optimism and abundance mindset. Aside from that, being group actions, reform hinges on mobilizing those who are able to do so to help those who are not. The phrase “solidarity” comes to mind, and that was the whole point. We need a solidarity mindset, not a sarcastic “good luck with that” mindset.
How did that ever get approved? The person who wanted them fired is an asshole, that's given but this is multiple failures. So sad. It's just one employee let them take their leave, it's not worth the legal and now PR repercussions
This is incredibly heartbreaking. I was fired from MongoDB after experiencing mental health problems, and HR as well as my manager were incredibly callous while I tried to navigate the accommodations process. Did not have a chance to take medical leave before I was summarily PIPed. It has taken me years to recover mentally. In the months afterwards, there were many points at which I was close to committing suicide. I hope the family is able to get closure, and I hope MongoDB loses in court.
This is sad and tragic but ultimately I don't think Mongo bares any responsibility here. If her partner left her while she was having a prolonged mental health crisis, would her partner be to blame for her suicide? I would argue: no.
I'm not American, and neither am I a lawyer, but the elephant in the room is that the workplace is responsible for health insurance, hence terminating her effectively removes her ability to get treatment, too.
Especially in this context, where she asked for at least a minor extension to finish her treatment.
I suspect the parents have a solid chance of winning this because the health insurance is linked, otherwise I'd completely agree with your opinion. An employer shouldn't be responsible for mothering their employees. It creates perverse incentives on both sides of the contract
Why shouldn't her medical providers be responsible for continuing critical health care regardless of payment? Why is it on the employer who is only tangentially related to this versus the people actually charging large sums of money for medically necessary treatment?
Also, the same health insurance can be continued after termination (with some external payment, of course) in addition to medicaid probably being available. None of that may be easy for someone with mental issues to navigate, but that is systematic.
As for the minor extension, is it clear how long she was on leave and what the conversation had been before the termination? The post said that they asked for small time extension, but did not give any indication as to what was happening before, neither length of time employed before taking the leave, what caused the leave, what was said in terms of a return, how long the absence was, etc. I feel like plugging in different answers for those questions would change how I feel about the culpability of the company in the current legal regime.
The usual answer is that there are other people who also need things and cannot pay, so then how should the provider pick between them fairly? (And likely some have a "free clinic", and as you mentioned there are options.)
Still almost all of the responsibility is on the patient, which is a terrible situation to be in for mental health patients. And even if the courts will find that the termination was wrongful it's unlikely that matters, because employers are not responsible for keeping employees alive and happy, they are responsible for making the usual safety precautions (see OSHA) and disability accommodations.
All the great perks of our cherished individualism suck when you have no one to enjoy them with.
If you believe a person can drive another person suicide through how they act, I don’t see how this would be any different, especially since they both rely on power asymmetry. If we don’t want to hook MongoDB responsible in some manner than we need to remove that asymmetry
Define "drive". Correlation is not causation. It's difficult to anticipate the trigger for a particular action or choice when other circumstances or stressors may have more significant factors that contributed to the decision. After all, many have lost jobs without ending their own lives and many have killed themselves despite high-profile, gainful employment. Instead, holding MongoDB responsible risks incentivizing this company and others to turn away and preemptively furlough anyone remotely approaching the statistical profile of a suicide risk.
“concerns about confidentiality or respect for the persons family” Sooo clearly you didn’t even click the link, given this is a post BY the family to raise awareness of scummy corporate behavior. While discussing mental health and self harm can be distressing, this post seems totally in-line with other HN discussions calling out malicious corporate behavior?
Anyway here's the actual complaint (I read it after I wrote the above), I guess her parents/counsel thought the same thing: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docInde...
reply