
Female exec sacked from £220,000 job after boozy night out on team 'Hackathon' trip to Austria sues firm claiming 'tech bro' male CEO was 'even more drunk and inappropriate'
A high-flying female executive at a software company was sacked for getting drunk at a work event despite her male colleagues being 'far more intoxicated' and facing no punishment, an employment tribunal heard.
Shannon Burns - who was on £220,000 a year - is suing for sex discrimination after complaining of the rampant 'tech bro' culture at the 'male-dominated' firm that hired her.
The engineer was headhunted for a senior role at Gitpod which she took on with the promise of a six figure salary and an equity package potentially worth over £30 million, the hearing was told.
However, soon after starting, issues emerged for Ms Burns - who suffers from ADHD and dyslexia -as she became aware of the problematic culture at company, it was heard.
The 'trailblazing' executive claims she was sacked after a 'Hackathon' work trip to Austria where she downed alcoholic shots with her boss and lost her hotel room key.
This was despite other senior male figures - including CEO Johannes Landgraf - also drinking and behaving in a way which she says was 'far more damaging' yet who 'faced no action'.
The tribunal heard that American Ms Burns - who had previously worked for Silicon Valley firm Slack - was headhunted by Gitpod in late 2022 and appointed to the key leadership role of Vice President of Engineering.
After starting in January 2023, Ms Burns told another female executive that she was feeling 'overwhelmed and pressured' which were exacerbating her symptoms of ADHD.
The executive said she had started to hear from multiple women that Mr Landgraf had a reputation of being a 'Tech Bro who liked to surround himself with fellow tech bros' - then started to see that culture for herself.
Ms Burns explained that the 'tech bro' is a stereotype term referring to 'mostly younger white men' who 'embody aggressive, entitled, self-aggrandising, risk takers'.
It 'often includes excessive drinking, confrontational and aggressive communication styles', she added.
Ms Burns said that other female executives had highlighted the 'problematic male-dominated culture' within the leadership team on 'multiple occasions'.
In March, she was made aware of plans for the Hackaton event which would take place at an off-site.
The executive relayed to Mr Landgraf worries from some engineers in her team that the event would be used as a test for who would be fired in the next round of layoffs.
The CEO - who attended the event in April 2023 - found this attitude 'concerning', the tribunal heard.
It was heard that on the evening of April 5, during the off-site event in Austria, Ms Burns encountered a 'slurring' Mr Landgraf at a bar and he offered her a 'shot of liquor'.
She was invited to take part in a 'game' which involved asking 'difficult' questions to one another about work.
The panel heard the CEO referred to the Hackathon and asked a 'mortified' Ms Burns for the identity of engineers who had confided in her around their fears surrounding it.
The employee said she was 'appalled' by the behaviour of the CEO who was 'so intoxicated and inappropriate that he could not recognise the damage he had just done by shouting these words over the blaring music at the bar, within earshot of the people he was talking about'.
Ms Burns told the tribunal: 'By the end of the evening I was intoxicated but by no means more so than either Johannes or other male colleagues who were consuming alcohol.'
It was heard that at the end of the evening, Ms Burns had to spend the night in a suite-like room - which she said had a sauna in it - after she got locked out of her hotel room.
Ms Burns said when she woke the following morning, she had only a short amount of time to pack and make the shuttle bus back to the airport.
That day, she received a message from a senior male executive who, referencing the events of the night before, said that Ms Burns must 'lead the team by example' and 'stay in control'.
The executive described feeling 'admonished for drinking too much' when she had 'not had more drinks than most of the rest of the people there that night, including the CEO'.
In June 2023, Ms Burns was 'unexpectedly' called into a meeting with two executives who told her that her employment at Gitpod was being terminated with immediate effect.
The decision was due to 'the way I showed up at the off-site (which) eroded trust and confidence in leadership, team and others at the company', it was heard.
Immediately after her dismissal, Mr Landgraf and other senior figures held meetings with staff who reported to Ms Burns' in which they were told she had been sacked for 'performance issues and for being drunk at the off-site'.
Bringing her claims to the tribunal, Ms Burns said: 'My male colleagues were drinking alcohol/drunk at the off site but I was the only one who was dismissed.
'One of my male colleagues (Johannes) behaved in a far more damaging way for both his own reputation and for Gitpod after 'consuming alcohol' at the offsite.'
Ms Burns is also suing for disability discrimination as she believes her dismissal arose from her ADHD.
Gitpod deny that she was fired for being drunk and say they were unaware of her disabilities.
The hearing continues.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Independent
21 minutes ago
- The Independent
Attorneys in NCAA antitrust case to share $475M in fees, with potential to reach $725M
The attorneys who shepherded the blockbuster antitrust lawsuit to fruition for hundreds of thousands of college athletes will share in just over $475 million in fees, and the figure could rise to more than $725 million over the next 10 years. The request for plaintiff legal fees in the House vs. NCAA case, outlined in a December court filing and approved Friday night, struck experts in class-action litigation as reasonable. Co-lead counsels Steve Berman and Jeffrey Kessler asked for $475.2 million, or 18.3% of the cash common funds of $2.596 billion. They also asked for an additional $250 million, for a total of $725.2 million, based on a widely accepted estimate of an additional $20 billion in direct benefits to athletes over the 10-year settlement term. That would be 3.2% of what would then be a $22.596 billion settlement. 'Class Counsel have represented classes of student-athletes in multiple litigations challenging NCAA restraints on student-athlete compensation, and they have achieved extraordinary results. Class Counsel's representation of the settlement class members here is no exception,' U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken wrote. University of Buffalo law professor Christine Bartholomew, who researched about 1,300 antitrust class-action settlements from 2005-22 for a book she authored, told The Associated Press the request for attorneys' fees could have been considered a bit low given the difficulty of the case, which dates back five years. She said it is not uncommon for plaintiffs' attorneys to be granted as much as 30% of the common funds. Attorneys' fees generally are calculated by multiplying an hourly rate by the number of hours spent working on a case. In class-action lawsuits, though, plaintiffs' attorneys work on a contingency basis, meaning they get paid at the end of the case only if the class wins a financial settlement. 'Initially, you look at it and think this is a big number,' Bartholomew said. 'When you look at how contingency litigation works generally, and then you think about how this fits into the class-action landscape, this is not a particularly unusual request.' The original lawsuit was filed in June 2020 and it took until November 2023 for Wilken to grant class certification, meaning she thought the case had enough merit to proceed. Elon University law professor Catherine Dunham said gaining class certification is challenging in any case, but especially a complicated one like this. 'If a law firm takes on a case like this where you have thousands of plaintiffs and how many depositions and documents, what that means is the law firm can't do other work while they're working on the case and they are taking on the risk they won't get paid,' Dunham said. 'If the case doesn't certify as a class, they won't get paid.' In the request for fees, the firm of Hagens Berman said it had dedicated 33,952 staff hours to the case through mid-December 2024. Berman, whose rate is $1,350 per hour, tallied 1,116.5 hours. Kessler, of Winston & Strawn, said he worked 1,624 hours on the case at a rate of $1,980 per hour. The case was exhaustive. Hundreds of thousands of documents totaling millions of pages were produced by the defendants — the NCAA, ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC — as part of the discovery process. Berman and Kessler wrote the 'plaintiffs had to litigate against six well-resourced defendants and their high-powered law firms who fought every battle tooth and nail. To fend off these efforts, counsel conducted extensive written discovery and depositions, and submitted voluminous expert submissions and lengthy briefing. In addition, class counsel also had to bear the risk of perpetual legislative efforts to kill these cases.' Antitrust class-action cases are handled by the federal court system and have been harder to win since 2005, when the U.S. Class Action Fairness Act was passed, according to Bartholomew. 'Defendants bring motion after motion and there's more of a pro-defendant viewpoint in federal court than there had been in state court,' she said. 'As a result, you would not be surprised that courts, when cases do get through to fruition, are pretty supportive of applications for attorneys' fees because there's great risk that comes from bringing these cases fiscally for the firms who, if the case gets tossed early, never gets compensated for the work they've done.' ___


The Independent
31 minutes ago
- The Independent
JD Vance breaks his silence on Trump and Musk feud after seeing Elon's Epstein tweet during Theo Von interview
Vice President JD Vance's first reaction to Elon Musk 's Trump-Epstein tweet was caught Thursday on Theo Von's podcast. On the 'This Past Weekend w/ Theo Von,' episode released Saturday, Von showed Vance one of the most viral tweets from the pair's feud, in which the Tesla CEO claimed, '@realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public.' 'Ok, wow. I haven't even seen this one,' Vance said, explaining he was on a plane amid Musk and Trump 's online exchanges. 'First of all, absolutely not. Donald Trump didn't do anything wrong with Jeffrey Epstein,' Vance said. 'Whatever the Democrats and the media says about him, that's totally BS.' The social media exchange came just a week after Musk left his DOGE role in the Trump Administration. Vance chalked Musk's online outbursts up to him 'being new to politics' and frustrations that his 'businesses are being attacked non-stop' since he joined the White House. Musk's departure followed a Wall Street Journal report citing insiders who claimed that even Trump was getting frustrated with Musk and was doubtful whether his goals within DOGE could be reached. Musk has since spoken out about his disapproval of the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which includes various policy changes, including tax cuts, welfare reform, and infrastructure investments. 'Elon is entitled to his opinion,' Vance told Von on the podcast. 'I'm not saying he has to agree with the bill or agree with everything that I'm saying. I just think it's a huge mistake for the world's wealthiest man — I think one of the most transformational entrepreneurs ever — to be at war with the world's most powerful man, who I think is doing more to save the country than anybody in my lifetime.' Vance added, 'I just think you've got to have some respect for him and say, 'yeah, we don't have to agree on every issue.' But is this war actually in the interest of the country? I don't think so.' Despite Musk going 'so nuclear' online, Vance is hopeful that he can 'come back into the fold' within politics. 'I know the president was getting a little frustrated, feeling like some of the criticisms were unfair coming from Elon,' Vance said. 'But I think it has been very restrained, because the president doesn't think that he needs to be in a blood feud with Elon Musk. And I actually think that if Elon chilled out a little bit everything would be fine.'


Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
John Fetterman slams fellow Dems for suddenly embracing Musk
By Sen. John Fetterman ripped his Democratic colleagues for immediately embracing Elon Musk amid the billionaire's raucous online feud with President Donald Trump. The Tesla owner has for days been posting an avalanche of negative critiques of the president and his landmark legislative package, the Big Beautiful Bill Act. The multi-trillion dollar bill includes tax cuts, border wall funding and a national debt limit increase. Musk, having just left work at the White House a week ago, has since turned on the president for the legislation, primarily sounding off on how the bill will allow the national debt to soar by trillions. The mercurial business leader also raked Trump over the coals by launching personal attacks against the Republican's character, saying the president is an Epstein-linked pedophile who never would have won the election without Musk's millions in donations. As the world's richest man lambasted the world's most powerful man publicly on X, some Democrats began hatching plans to turn the two against each other. Fetterman warned his colleagues against ingratiating Musk back into the Democratic party, however. 'It wasn't that long ago that Tesla was like the virtue-signaling kind of accessory for Dems,' he said. 'I would never want to vandalize Teslas, and the 'big, beautiful bill' is wrong for America. So, from my perspective, I've just tried to be consistent through that.' Known for bucking his party in displaying a fervent allegiance to Israel and meeting personally with Trump, the Pennsylvania Democrat's warning against Musk stands in contrast to his typically contrarian policy posture. Meanwhile, California Democrat Rep. Ro Khanna - who represents parts of Silicon Valley and has known Musk for decades - is of the mind that his party would benefit from brining the billionaire back into the party's fold. Democrats should be 'in a dialogue' with the billionaire, Khanna told Politico this week. 'If Biden had a big supporter criticize him, Trump would have hugged him the next day. When we refused to meet with [Robert Kennedy Jr.], Trump embraced him & won,' Khanna posted on X. 'We can be the party of sanctimonious lectures, or the party of FDR that knows how to win & build a progressive majority,' the Democrat's post continued. New York Democrat Ritchie Torres also has said that his party should reassess its relationship with the Tesla owner. 'I'm a believer in redemption, and he is telling the truth about the legislation,' he told Politico. Former Obama staffer and popular liberal podcast host Jon Favreau reposted one of Musk's posts calling for the Big Beautiful Bill Act to be 'killed.' 'Couldn't agree with Elon more: kill the bill,' he posted.