Here’s the entire thing if you don’t want to go to that link:

There were a series of accusations about our company last August from a former employee. Immediately following these accusations, LMG hired Roper Greyell - a large Vancouver-based law firm specializing in labor and employment law, to conduct a third-party investigation. Their website describes them as “one of the largest employment and labour law firms in Western Canada.” They work with both private and public sector employers.

To ensure a fair investigation, LMG did not comment or publicly release any data and asked our team members to do the same. Now that the investigation is complete, we’re able to provide a summary of the findings.

The investigation found that:

  • Claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated.

  • Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

  • Any concerns that were raised were investigated. Furthermore, from reviewing our history, the investigator is confident that if any other concerns had been raised, we would have investigated them.

  • There was no evidence of “abuse of power” or retaliation. The individual involved may not have agreed with our decisions or performance feedback, but our actions were for legitimate work-related purposes, and our business reasons were valid.

  • Allegations of process errors and miscommunication while onboarding this individual were partially substantiated, but the investigator found ample documentary evidence of LMG working to rectify the errors and the individual being treated generously and respectfully. When they had questions, they were responded to and addressed.

In summary, as confirmed by the investigation, the allegations made against the team were largely unfounded, misleading, and unfair.

With all of that said, in the spirit of ongoing improvement, the investigator shared their general recommendation that fast-growing workplaces should invest in continuing professional development. The investigator encouraged us to provide further training to our team about how to raise concerns to reinforce our existing workplace policies.

Prior to receiving this report, LMG solicited anonymous feedback from the team in an effort to ensure there was no unreported bullying and harassment and hosted a training session which reiterated our workplace policies and reinforced our reporting structure. LMG will continue to assess ongoing continuing education for our team.

At this time, we feel our case for a defamation suit would be very strong; however, our deepest wish is to simply put all of this behind us. We hope that will be the case, given the investigator’s clear findings that the allegations made online were misrepresentations of what actually occurred. We will continue to assess if there is persistent reputational damage or further defamation.

This doesn’t mean our company is perfect and our journey is over. We are continuously learning and trying to do better. Thank you all for being part of our community.

    • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      At the same time it came out that they were pretty shitty to one of the products they reviewed and some other terrible reviewing practices they had, sexual abuse allegations came about. That was a while ago, but thankfully it seems they investigated themselves and found no issue. Works for the police, works for LTT.

      • Strykker@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        I see you can’t read.

        They hired an outside group to come in and perform an investigation, this is like the exact opposite of what police “internal investigations” do.

        • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          “Canada’s largest”, but companies don’t hire you if you consistently make the companies paying you look bad. Like HR, these sorts of companies help protect the people paying them.

          • Strykker@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            3 months ago

            Jesus fuck you all so fucking cynical it’s a miracle you can put your pants on without shitting them in fear.

            • body_by_make@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              3 months ago

              You didn’t even see a report from this company, just what LTT said they said, and you believe them outright. This is what being a fucking shill is, man. Can’t you see that daddy Linus isn’t going to reward you for your blind loyalty to him? He’ll never notice you and your blind devotion.

              • TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                3 months ago

                You don’t put out a statement saying “This company looked at us & found this:” without running the statement by the company in question first.

                Well, you can, but you’ll usually find yourself in hot water if the things you’re claiming the company found run contrary to what they actually found.

  • Footnote2669@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    It seems like people want… a volunteer (no money involved) who has never heard of LMG (unbiased) to interview people without permission (LMG wouldn’t know about the investigation and couldn’t prepare), access information and then release all of it. Remember to include finger prints of everyone interviewed in case the statement are falsified.

    I’m exaggerating here but it looks like no matter what they do, someone will have a problem with it.

    Like… investigators were paid to… investigate. They’re not gonna get paid more for not finding anything or gonna refund the money if they do. 100% they have this in their contract

    • scutiger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’m exaggerating here but it looks like no matter what they do, someone will have a problem with it.

      Well you’re not wrong, but the point is that the external investigator is not the one releasing these statements, and therefore nothing said can really be trusted. I couldn’t imagine them letting the investigators release the findings themselves anyway, that’s a dangerous proposition if they find shit that hadn’t even been mentioned yet.

    • Tramort@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      But it’s also going to reduce their chances of getting hired for this kind of work.

      Sponsored investigations cannot be impartial unless the investigator is blinded with respect to who hired them.

      • Chewy@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        On the other hand, if an investigator is found out to do bad investigations, their credibility gets lost. Some corporations likely would choose them for exactly that reason, but most won’t, so there’s some incentive to do a proper job.

        Given I don’t know of bad rumors about this corporation, I’d go with @ashok36@lemmy.world’s take that the following statement was written by a lawyer and thus sexual harassment did happen but was addressed.

        Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

        Given that this issue was made public, it wasn’t addressed well enough for at least some parties involved. Hopefully harassment won’t be an issue going forward.

        • TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          This! Would you hire a mechanic who you know does what you say but 1/3 cars they “repair” ends up breaking again 6 months later?

          As noted above, I think the statement is that allegations were made and they were not ignored, and/or were addressed.

      • BennyHill500@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Its like forced arbitration where a “impartial” arbitrator is hired by the company to settle disputes and IIRC the stats are that the company who pays them wins like 99% of cases.

  • Franklin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    You can’t investigate employee abuse allegations months after the fact, everything there is circumstantial and proving anything after the fact is near impossible.

    This was obviously an act done to cover the business. I’m not saying they are wrong to do so. I’m just saying that anyone expected any other outcome isn’t living in reality.

    • Mountain_Mike_420@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well yes you can. I am sure the investigation company poured through digital (timestamped) logs, messages, data, emails…

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    One big question I’m wondering is if that company they hired to investigate themselves ever finds a company they’ve been hired to investigate (by that company) is in the wrong or if they are basically a PR company disguised as an investigation company.

    It sucks that LTT is in this position because I acknowledge that it looks the same whether or not they are innocent, but it’s so hard to trust that these things are done in good faith when it’s likely more profitable to do it in bad faith.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I know a lawyer at Roper-Greyell. The firm specializes in defending/protecting companies around employment law. They probably also consult on best practices for companies to avoid suits.

      They are a law firm, but they are LMG’s law firm. Note that we’re reading what LMG wants to share about the report, not the report itself.

      It’s a legal strategy to say, “Investigators didn’t find anything seriously wrong, and we’re considering suing you for defamation”

      A lot of the other replies to your comment read between the lines in some insightful ways. I would just like to also add that “claims of bullying and harassment were not substantiated” means that the investigation didn’t find evidence. Not that the bullying/ harassment didn’t occur. It is kind of meaningless without knowing what information was looked at. What sorts of substantiation could reasonably be expected from the investigation?

      It’s possible that the person making allegations has evidence that the investigators didn’t.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, the language used and things said don’t inspire much confidence. Especially the defamation part. Are they being kind by dropping the matter? Are they pretending to be strong when they know they don’t have a defamation case? Or did they include that to silence her?

        Though if it’s either of the two last cases, all she has to do is double down on her position and she wins because the only move to beat that is to actually file the defamation case (and win it or settle to turn it into an expensive draw). And a suit would come with discovery.

        • m0darn@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 months ago

          Are they being kind by dropping the matter?

          I believe they are sincere that they just want this all to go away. It’s self interest though, not kindness.

          Are they pretending to be strong when they know they don’t have a defamation case? Or did they include that to silence her?

          I think what they are saying is “shut up or the lawyers will make a lot of money”.

    • Eheran@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      LTT sold someone else’s property (prototype even, after failing to review it correctly). I doubt they are innocent.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah, the way they handled that was IMO criminally negligent, assuming it wasn’t a deliberate attempt to sabotage that company. But it doesn’t imply anything about the sexual harassment issue.

        Though their initial handling of that situation going viral is exactly why I’m skeptical about the integrity of this investigation. Each step Linus took just screamed: “we’ll just say what we think we need to say to make this problem go away” plus a dose of “I’ll apologize but also I still think I was right”. But he also saw just how badly all of that went. So it would be in character for the investigation to be just another version of this, but it would also make sense for him to have realized that a fake investigation would make things worse and that his only real way out was to let go of his fate and leave it to a legitimate investigation.

        But both of those cases look the same from here so idk.

  • ashok36@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    Allegations that sexual harassment were ignored or not addressed were false.

    The only way to read this, assuming the lawyers wrote the statement, is that sexual harassment did happen but was “addressed”. Otherwise they’d just say the claims of sexual harassment were unsubstantiated.

    I’d like to know more about how those claims were addressed before making final judgement.

    • TagMeInSkipIGotThis@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s not the only way to read that at all. Your interpretation is that sexual harrassment was not ignored & was addressed; but the sentence is actually that allegations were not ignored and were addressed.

    • redfellow@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Correction, the only way to read this is that allegations happened, and said allegations were not ignored, but investigated. The statement doesn’t tell us wether those allegations were found to have merit.

    • BleatingZombie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      I’ve made my final judgement. That was one long message saying “We’re guilty and we know it, but we’re not going to tell anyone”