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.

  • five82@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 month ago

    I don’t understand why LTT wouldn’t negotiate a settlement first with the accuser in exchange for a nondisclosure and non-disparagement agreement before releasing any statement. You could view their posturing as defiance.

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      And that’s of course they actually didn’t do anything and the accusations are entirely false in which case why would they settle with someone trying to just get money out of them?

        • Makhno@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 month ago

          Yeah but then you look like you hire predators. So no, not a good move.

          • five82@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 month ago

            You don’t need to admit anything. Settle the matter confidentially without an admission of guilt. If you are asked, say that it was an HR matter that you are not allowed to discuss.

            Then you can be less guarded about the investigation findings in your statement and you don’t have to worry about defamation and a potential lawsuit that could further damage your reputation.

    • mechoman444@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      13
      ·
      1 month ago

      Yes. Correct. A person made accusations and those accusations were exaggerated by cowboy journalism in part by gamer Nexus and various other YouTube channels.

      They are most definitely being definite. And if they were to agree to some kind of out of court settlement with a nondisclosure agreement it wouldn’t be made public.

      • HauntedCupcake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 month ago

        I don’t think GamersNexus covered Madison’s case? I know they covered Billet Labs and the performance metrics being off though

    • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      The problem is the repuational damage, and subsequently financial damage to the brand. A not ingsificant number of people unsubscribed and stoped watch watching their videos. More importantly sponsors could stop sponsoring them because they don’t the association - just as we’ve seen LMG drop sponsors over the years.

      If they just settled this quietly, the assumption would be the settlement was an admittion of guilt.

      Assuming the allagations are false, the defimation suit is a legimate response - for a business model that relys on sponsors and reputation, having that damaged is a big deal financially.

      In realty, there is nothing to gain to from pursing the case - a business going after an individual is a horrible idea for PR and the individual isn’t going to have the money to make up the cost anyways.