Christian Horner under Investigation

[Watto]

I see people say about going to court. Under what basis?

If she is sacked, she can go for wrongful dismissal via a tribunal I guess. But, she hasn't been sacked (yet).

I've not seen anything illegal that would warrant police action, and if it did, in our crumbling justice system God knows what would happen anyway.

And anyway if she did get to court, up against the army of legal reps RB would have, her chances would be minimal.

if the messages are accurate it’s a fairly strong workplace harassment laws. Particularly a CEO to a subordinate someone that has the power to sack you if you say no etc


It wouldn’t be a criminal case in all likelihood rather a civil case.

There have been some reports she’s has a high priced lawyer helping her too.

Which law office does Toto have shares in ?

I’d be interested if it was the Austrian side of RB that would be there to try and help get Horner out. One article today- I forget which now - seemed to suggest anytime her role/capacity at RB was reduced she’d call her lawyer about it

[maxxer]

if the messages are accurate it’s a fairly strong workplace harassment laws. Particularly a CEO to a subordinate someone that has the power to sack you if you say no etc


It wouldn’t be a criminal case in all likelihood rather a civil case.

There have been some reports she’s has a high priced lawyer helping her too.

Which law office does Toto have shares in ?

I’d be interested if it was the Austrian side of RB that would be there to try and help get Horner out. One article today- I forget which now - seemed to suggest anytime her role/capacity at RB was reduced she’d call her lawyer about it

That would be some way to fight out the power struggle

[chrstphrln]

At this point, people are clutching to straws. It doesn't matter of it was Red Bull GmbH or KC that dismissed it. The fact is, the complaint didn't warrant any action and hence it was dismissed. The woman is now suspended and nobody knows exactly.

Oh, there is a big difference! I can't believe that someone doesn't recognize that.

I know what you mean.
I was concerned with the claim that the KC had dismissed the complaint and the alleged proof of this, which is none.
However, it is undeniable that it makes a big difference whether a supposedly objective lawyer dismisses a claim or whether he merely writes a statement whose content is unknown and the defendant company dismisses a claim against itself.
A difference not in the result, but in the judgement of the integrity of the decision.

I assume that is something everyone here agrees on.

[Watto]

Which law office does Toto have shares in ?

I’d be interested if it was the Austrian side of RB that would be there to try and help get Horner out. One article today- I forget which now - seemed to suggest anytime her role/capacity at RB was reduced she’d call her lawyer about it

That would be some way to fight out the power struggle

Considering the Thai side of RB was looking at moving red bull technology outside RBGmbH without the Austrian side knowing and when he had the controlling stake in the company it’s not beyond possibility, or could maybe have wealthy family somewhere.

[Watto]

Oh, there is a big difference! I can't believe that someone doesn't recognize that.

I know what you mean.
I was concerned with the claim that the KC had dismissed the complaint and the alleged proof of this, which is none.
However, it is undeniable that it makes a big difference whether a supposedly objective lawyer dismisses a claim or whether he merely writes a statement whose content is unknown and the defendant company dismisses a claim against itself.
A difference not in the result, but in the judgement of the integrity of the decision.

I assume that is something everyone here agrees on.

pure speculation but if the Austrian side I’d RB really want med Horner gone blind sure a whistle blower could maybe leak it if there where findings again him

If she takes it to court over either harassment or if it gets to unfair dismissal is it something that could be picked up in discovery I wonder?

[maxxer]

I’d be interested if it was the Austrian side of RB that would be there to try and help get Horner out. One article today- I forget which now - seemed to suggest anytime her role/capacity at RB was reduced she’d call her lawyer about it

That would be some way to fight out the power struggle

Considering the Thai side of RB was looking at moving red bull technology outside RBGmbH without the Austrian side knowing and when he had the controlling stake in the company it’s not beyond possibility, or could maybe have wealthy family somewhere.

Also makes me wonder as mentioned previous here that she could be moved to a different position , then i was thinking within Redbull f1, but on the other hand Red bull is such a big company there would be multiple places she could work outside the f1 team.

[Ben1980]

I see people say about going to court. Under what basis?

If she is sacked, she can go for wrongful dismissal via a tribunal I guess. But, she hasn't been sacked (yet).

I've not seen anything illegal that would warrant police action, and if it did, in our crumbling justice system God knows what would happen anyway.

And anyway if she did get to court, up against the army of legal reps RB would have, her chances would be minimal.

if the messages are accurate it’s a fairly strong workplace harassment laws. Particularly a CEO to a subordinate someone that has the power to sack you if you say no etc


It wouldn’t be a criminal case in all likelihood rather a civil case.

There have been some reports she’s has a high priced lawyer helping her too.

The argument for her would be, my boss tried it on, and I felt not in a position to say no. Even trying to calm it down at times.

I'm guessing does she want her history to be dragged out in court, especially for the times she was acting more willing.

My guess (only a guess) is there was sone workplace flirting, which happens. But wonder who tool that flirting further, though if that wasn't on a message, its he said, she said, which gets nowhere.

[myurr]

I know what you mean.
I was concerned with the claim that the KC had dismissed the complaint and the alleged proof of this, which is none.
However, it is undeniable that it makes a big difference whether a supposedly objective lawyer dismisses a claim or whether he merely writes a statement whose content is unknown and the defendant company dismisses a claim against itself.
A difference not in the result, but in the judgement of the integrity of the decision.

I assume that is something everyone here agrees on.

I'm not sure the difference is as big as people think, but it's still an important detail. Either way the KC was hired by the company for the company to protect the company's interests. No reason has been given for why the grievance was dismissed, it could be over a technicality or it could be the balance of probability was Horner was innocent, or anything in between.

It's also not a given that Horner himself is fully familiar with the process and is simply wrong. He's not on RB GmbH's board, and he likely hasn't seen the KC's report, terms of reference, or been told precisely how the findings were reached. He should just have been informed of the outcome and given the same information as the complainant, so if he has been given more information then that could be an internal process breach and indicative of corruption of the process.

[myurr]

The argument for her would be, my boss tried it on, and I felt not in a position to say no. Even trying to calm it down at times.

I'm guessing does she want her history to be dragged out in court, especially for the times she was acting more willing.

My guess (only a guess) is there was sone workplace flirting, which happens. But wonder who tool that flirting further, though if that wasn't on a message, its he said, she said, which gets nowhere.

It shouldn't matter - it's there in the messages that the woman asked Horner to stop, and it's there in the messages that he didn't despite her repeated protestations.

The most damning exchange in there is when Horner says that he offered her a way out of his behaviour, and the victim said she didn't want to leave her job. I can't see any rational explanation for why that is acceptable and not against employment law.

[Watto]

That would be some way to fight out the power struggle

Considering the Thai side of RB was looking at moving red bull technology outside RBGmbH without the Austrian side knowing and when he had the controlling stake in the company it’s not beyond possibility, or could maybe have wealthy family somewhere.

Also makes me wonder as mentioned previous here that she could be moved to a different position , then i was thinking within Redbull f1, but on the other hand Red bull is such a big company there would be multiple places she could work outside the f1 team.

Most articles I saw seemed to suggest that Horner and the woman still had some contact because of her role at RBR so sounds like another high ups PA?

[Ben1980]

The argument for her would be, my boss tried it on, and I felt not in a position to say no. Even trying to calm it down at times.

I'm guessing does she want her history to be dragged out in court, especially for the times she was acting more willing.

My guess (only a guess) is there was sone workplace flirting, which happens. But wonder who tool that flirting further, though if that wasn't on a message, its he said, she said, which gets nowhere.

It shouldn't matter - it's there in the messages that the woman asked Horner to stop, and it's there in the messages that he didn't despite her repeated protestations.

The most damning exchange in there is when Horner says that he offered her a way out of his behaviour, and the victim said she didn't want to leave her job. I can't see any rational explanation for why that is acceptable and not against employment law.

That is pretty damning.

[Watto]

I know what you mean.
I was concerned with the claim that the KC had dismissed the complaint and the alleged proof of this, which is none.
However, it is undeniable that it makes a big difference whether a supposedly objective lawyer dismisses a claim or whether he merely writes a statement whose content is unknown and the defendant company dismisses a claim against itself.
A difference not in the result, but in the judgement of the integrity of the decision.

I assume that is something everyone here agrees on.

I'm not sure the difference is as big as people think, but it's still an important detail. Either way the KC was hired by the company for the company to protect the company's interests. No reason has been given for why the grievance was dismissed, it could be over a technicality or it could be the balance of probability was Horner was innocent, or anything in between.

It's also not a given that Horner himself is fully familiar with the process and is simply wrong. He's not on RB GmbH's board, and he likely hasn't seen the KC's report, terms of reference, or been told precisely how the findings were reached. He should just have been informed of the outcome and given the same information as the complainant, so if he has been given more information then that could be an internal process breach and indicative of corruption of the process.

Agree with a lot of this especially we don’t know his findings he may find some wrongdoing but not believe it would be enough for a termination. But I still argue if the messages are seen as completely accurate it’s hard to see how he could say the case would be dismissed based on what’s public. At the very least it feels there is a detail(s) that are still missing

[mendis]

I know what you mean.
I was concerned with the claim that the KC had dismissed the complaint and the alleged proof of this, which is none.
However, it is undeniable that it makes a big difference whether a supposedly objective lawyer dismisses a claim or whether he merely writes a statement whose content is unknown and the defendant company dismisses a claim against itself.
A difference not in the result, but in the judgement of the integrity of the decision.

I assume that is something everyone here agrees on.

I'm not sure the difference is as big as people think, but it's still an important detail. Either way the KC was hired by the company for the company to protect the company's interests. No reason has been given for why the grievance was dismissed, it could be over a technicality or it could be the balance of probability was Horner was innocent, or anything in between.

It's also not a given that Horner himself is fully familiar with the process and is simply wrong. He's not on RB GmbH's board, and he likely hasn't seen the KC's report, terms of reference, or been told precisely how the findings were reached. He should just have been informed of the outcome and given the same information as the complainant, so if he has been given more information then that could be an internal process breach and indicative of corruption of the process.

Agree with a lot of this especially we don’t know his findings he may find some wrongdoing but not believe it would be enough for a termination. But I still argue if the messages are seen as completely accurate it’s hard to see how he could say the case would be dismissed based on what’s public. At the very least it feels there is a detail(s) that are still missing

It may be possible that the messages are totally fake and someone's imaginary creation? No one has validated if they are genuine and authentic.

[Watto]

I'm not sure the difference is as big as people think, but it's still an important detail. Either way the KC was hired by the company for the company to protect the company's interests. No reason has been given for why the grievance was dismissed, it could be over a technicality or it could be the balance of probability was Horner was innocent, or anything in between.

It's also not a given that Horner himself is fully familiar with the process and is simply wrong. He's not on RB GmbH's board, and he likely hasn't seen the KC's report, terms of reference, or been told precisely how the findings were reached. He should just have been informed of the outcome and given the same information as the complainant, so if he has been given more information then that could be an internal process breach and indicative of corruption of the process.

Agree with a lot of this especially we don’t know his findings he may find some wrongdoing but not believe it would be enough for a termination. But I still argue if the messages are seen as completely accurate it’s hard to see how he could say the case would be dismissed based on what’s public. At the very least it feels there is a detail(s) that are still missing

It may be possible that the messages are totally fake and someone's imaginary creation? No one has validated if they are genuine and authentic.

of course it’s possible I have though, off no real info mind you, there is some truth to the some are real and some are fake

[mendis]

Agree with a lot of this especially we don’t know his findings he may find some wrongdoing but not believe it would be enough for a termination. But I still argue if the messages are seen as completely accurate it’s hard to see how he could say the case would be dismissed based on what’s public. At the very least it feels there is a detail(s) that are still missing

It may be possible that the messages are totally fake and someone's imaginary creation? No one has validated if they are genuine and authentic.

of course it’s possible I have though, off no real info mind you, there is some truth to the some are real and some are fake

We live in a world of dangerous misinformation, fakery and AI. Unless something is not established as 100% genuine, it would be ideal to treat it as fake. The only way any piece of that information that's available on that google drive is real, is if there is a forensic analysis of it. Our hate to an individual shouldn't bias us so much that we start believing unverified information as genuine, just because "it looks genuine".