She didn't file a lawsuit. She filed a charge with the NLRB, the NLRB investigated for nearly for 21 months and has initiated a formal case (internal to the NLRB, not a lawsuit) against Mozilla.
> So from what I can see so far, there is no evidence beyond "I don't get a job I thought I should."
There is almost certainly evidence cited in the NLRB complaint, but that complaint is non-public and subject to redactions before being released under the FOIA, and AFAICT no one has FOIA'd and published even the redacted version. But "I don't have access to the document where any evidence would be discussed" may technically make "from what I can see, there is no evidence" correct, the "from what I can see" is doing a lot of work.
The NLRB investigation before filing the case was 21 months from the complaint, presumably they found some evidence that made them decide to move forward in that time.
The complaint is not publicly available and is flagged as potentially requiring redactions before being released under the FOIA, but you are free to request it if you are concerned with getting an idea (potentially incomplete, though) of what the government's basis for moving forward is.
On a broader note, it seems pretty plain that any outcome here won't be desirable. If the claim is provably true, and they are forced to hire her, they'll find a way to remove her like Apple did. Likely through bad performance reviews and a PIP. In any case, coming across as a sue happy crusader is a good way to get future applications elsewhere sorted right to the trash.
Edit: clarity
The NLRB complaint was filed in February, 2022. The NLRB completed its investigation and decided to file charges in November, 2023.
Presumably, Mozilla had an opportunity to show this "misrepresentation" to the NLRB during the intervening 21 months.
[0] While there is no complainant name, this seems to be the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-290382
Well, yeah, AFAICT no one has bothered to do an FOIA request and get even the publicly-disclosable part of the complaint and publish it, so no one really knows anything.
> regardless of their practices of hiring people with Unions
Since there are specific legal protections for that, if they do what is proven (to the civil preponderance of the evidence standard) to be discriminating against people with an organizing background, they absolutely are legally at fault.
> I'm not sure they can be forced to hire someone who on a qualification level is fine but who might not be a fit for the companies morals.
If the "morals" in question are about things which are activities legally protected from hiring discrimination, they absolutely can be. This isn't even a little bit unclear,
I’d be richer than Bezos if I could successfully sue all my interviewers who gave this impression.
US Labor Board Files a Complaint Against Mozilla for Refusing to Hire Apple Activist
Labor activist knows how to file labor related complaints.
So, she had "the impression" that she was the company's first choice for the job? And as the interviews went on, they decided to not hire her and she's suing?
It must be amazing to realize oneself as so fabulous a colleague and fit and perfect at all skills that a company is obliged to hire someone.
Meanwhile that exact company fired their CEO for donating to a political campaign that won
