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...
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...
Here's a short article on the subject that explains this pretty clearly: http://www.thompsoncoe.com/NewsEvents/Publications?find=2631....