Now, to be clear — these are allegations only, and I represent no one in this litigation. We will, in fairness, cover the company’s answer when/if it is filed. We take no position on whether the complained of actions were for the reasons alleged, by the plaintiff — a former Manager of Textura’s Association Relationships (then demoted, only after announcing her pregnancy, all allegedly). It seems no one seriously disputes that she was ultimately fired.
I will include a complete copy of the compaint here (as a 6 page PDF file) — as it is a public document, in the federal District Courthouse, in Chicago, as of this morning. You may read it, and make your own determinations, here. But I will not quote from it, at any length, just yet.
As I say, we will cover the company’s answer, in due course, when it is filed — but back in October 2015, the plaintiff here had received her so called “right to sue” letter, from the Chicago office of the EEOC. That is, the EEOC chose not to use its admittedly quite-limited resources to bring her case, in the name of the EEOC, on her behalf, gratis — but there should be no adverse inference taken from that fact. The EEOC has only a limited budget, and must choose the handful of cases that it believes will have the most impact, each year.
And Textura is likely just not big enough — as a target. But that (of course) is merely my own personal conjecture.
Do your own diligence — the company’s General Counsel (as is often the case) is alleged to have made most of the allegedly unfair decisions; and a few other women are listed as having experienced similar unfair treatment, but thus far, at least, none of them have added their names to the suit.
I would expect that this will likely settle, in due course. Separately, the federal securities non-disclosure lawsuit remains pending, as of this morning — also in the US District courthouse, in Chicago.