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.

    • L3ft_F13ld!@links.hackliberty.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Yeah, I was trying not to be biased and immediately think this was all BS. Then I read the part about a case for defamation and just immediately went back to “fuck these guys”.

      Just came across as the bully playing the victim trying to show how reasonable and nice they’re being by not “retaliating” by bullying any further.

      • Boozilla@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        1 month ago

        I agree with you, it reads that way to me as well. Playing devil’s advocate, if the accused company really was innocent of these charges and it was a disgruntled / vindictive employee…I can understand them wanting to put that out there. However, considering the power imbalance here, I think it was a dumb move. They should have taken the high ground this time and held that idea in reserve. I don’t think LTT is innocent here, BTW. I don’t know how guilty or not guilty they are. The place has a bad smell to it, though.

        • Grangle1@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          1 month ago

          Linus himself just seems to give off that “nice guy on camera, exact opposite behind the scenes” kind of vibe. I’ve seen him get a bit riled up on podcast videos and it really comes off like he’s holding back. Perhaps the employee’s story was all too believable from others who get that perception of him. So I could see how the defamation threat would be like him/the company to try to show “we’re really angry and could do more but we’re gonna hold our temper”.

          • folshost@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            12
            ·
            1 month ago

            I kinda get that vibe too. But without knowing more about him, I imagine what I perceive might also just be someone who’s very confident in themselves who doesn’t necessarily care very much what others think about him. Which, Linus has built his own company from the ground up, and it has made him very wealthy, so, he has some legitimate reason for that confidence, in his competence and his f you money. I suppose that might also co-occur with easily overlooking other people’s problems, or being narcissistic though. Which is bad for a boss (e.g. Elon). Still, hard to just summarily judge without more information

            • Boozilla@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              9
              ·
              1 month ago

              Appreciate the nuanced take and you make some great points. I question his actual competence, though. I think he’s good at faking it. The channel has always lacked rigor.

              • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 month ago

                The channel has always lacked rigor.

                Then again, they’re doing 10-15 minuite videos on what is essentially an entertainment platform, not multiple hour PHD dissertations.

                • Aphelion@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  If he’s just making videos for entertainment, then stop putting up false benchmarks and bad data. People are using his videos to make expensive buying decisions, and I don’t see any disclaimers on said videos saying “this is just for entertainment purposes”.

                  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    People using a single youtube video from a single youtube channel to make expensive buying decisions is the bigger problem.

                • Boozilla@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Then again, they do reviews and give tech recommendations all the time. It’s even in the name.

          • Boozilla@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            1 month ago

            Completely agree. His creepiness is obvious to me. Unfortunately half this community will rally behind their boy no matter what he does. It’s disappointing but not surprising. It’s never been a serious / professionally operated channel, but it’s popular with a certain demographic.

        • fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          1 month ago

          They should have taken the high ground this time

          Any time there is this big of a power imbalance they should always take the high ground. And when they don’t that’s a good sign that you shouldn’t have much respect for them.

    • ThelVadam@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      Weren’t there a few (ex?) employees that came forward shortly after the initial accusations surfaced and confirmed it was true?

      I could be misremembering things but I also vaguely recall the initial accusations being backed up with receipts. Wasn’t there an Imgur album with a whole bunch of screenshots of conversations proving the accusations weren’t made up? Or am I confusing two completely different situations together?

      I didn’t follow the situation super closely, and moved on and forgot about it until I saw this post.

      Edit: looks like i was indeed wrong and confusing two separate situations.

      • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 month ago

        I didn’t follow it closely either, in fact this is the first I’ve heard about ex employees confirming and an album of screen shots.

        However, I am hesitant to accept screenshots as proof of anything - this is a company of artistic tech nerds, I’m sure 70% of the staff could make a convincing screenshot and 30% of them will know to make the metadata match.

        As for ex employees speaking up, it’s all hearsay. It could be true, but it could also not. There’s no reliable way to determine that with out substantial evidence backing them.

        I would accept it if someone took them to the courts and won - unfortually thats a huge finaical burdern for an individual, so that’s unlikely to happen.

        Alternatively if the labor board started issuing fines for crimes, that’d be a clear indicator something bad was happening.

        In this case, I am sticking with inoocent until proven guilty.

      • DolphinMath@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        If you’re referring to APrime, he did release an updated statement on Twitter/X.

        Last year, I made the decision to leave LMG influenced by a series of negative emotions that clouded my judgement. So over the past few months, I’ve taken the time to apologize privately to Linus, Yvonne, and others on the team because my actions and words were unfair to them.

        Throughout my five years of employment there, they’ve shown nothing but kindness and forgiveness. We’ve had our differences, but none of them justified the comments I made or the disturbances I caused after my departure.

        My decision to leave was unfortunately precipitated by a challenging period in my personal life, which I felt was affecting my work. The “drama” unfolded while I was on vacation, a time when I was hoping to recharge. Instead, I returned feeling more frustrated & immediately quit.

        Since then, I’ve continued with therapy, which I had started in the Spring under the company health plan, and this eventually led to a diagnosis of certain mental health conditions. I’m grateful for the support I received, as it helped me understand and address these issues.

        I genuinely miss the people at LMG (though the feeling may not be mutual) & feel my motives for leaving were misguided.

        However, I’ve been fortunate to work with some incredibly talented and wonderful people since, & I’m excited about the prospect having more in the future. :)