Wolfe might not even need to show that Tinder/IAC knew if she can show that Mateen invoked his supervisory authority to demote Wolfe from co-founder status. In such cases, where the harasser uses official authority to effect a tangible employment action, the company is vicariously liable for the conduct of the harasser, without any further showing by the plaintiff.
If she can't show a tangible employment action, the company can avoid liability by showing that it acted reasonably to prevent or correct the harassment, or that she acted unreasonably by e.g. not complaining to someone higher up. Showing lack of knowledge would be a good start, but they could also show they tried to take corrective measures when they found out. Of course if the text messages are true, some of those angles might be foreclosed...
> * Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly).
It is very unusual to see a company actually acknowledge an allegation like that. But do you think it was a bad idea to do so?
Obviously it has legal ramifications. They're literally admitting guilt.
But Tinder/IAC will have to work to do to demonstrate that they care about having a healthy workplace culture. And this seems like a good way to lend credibility to the fact that they take that responsibility seriously (instead of just FUD-ing the victim with a vaguely worded statement).
* Mateen did supervise Wolfe.
* Mateen did send some "inappropriate" messages to Wolfe (Tinder has, bafflingly, acknowledged this publicly).
* The text messages in the exhibits in the complaint actually occurred.
At this point, vice-grip mortal-lock "bad" seems to be just a "Tinder and/or IAC's management knew this was happening" showing away, right?