Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsSusan Fowler published a public account on February 19, 2017, after she had left Uber. In it she described what she characterized as sexual harassment, gender bias, and human resources responses that she found ineffective during her time as an engineer on the company’s infrastructure work. Her post led Uber’s chief executive to announce an urgent investigation. A later outside review produced recommendations about leadership, board oversight, and workplace systems.
Her post and the company’s review are two different things. Fowler’s post is her own first-person account, and the allegations in it remain hers. The review’s recommendations are organizational findings and proposed remedies. The sources available for this article do not show that every event she described was adjudicated or independently proven, so this article keeps the two accounts separate.
What Fowler alleged
Contemporary coverage described Fowler as a former site reliability engineer at Uber. In her account, a manager sent her sexually explicit or propositioning messages early in her team assignment. She said she reported those messages, and that the human resources response did not resolve the problem to her satisfaction.
She also described alleged obstacles to transferring to another team and to advancing in her role, along with broader sexism she said she saw in the workplace. These points are allegations drawn from her post. They are not findings made by a court, a regulator, or an independent fact-finder.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Why she went public
The central step in her account is the move from internal reporting to public disclosure. She had reported the messages through the channels available to her, and in her account those channels did not resolve her concerns. Publishing the post was the point at which she put her account on the public record, where it could be read, discussed, and answered by the company.
Uber’s immediate response
On February 19, 2017, TechCrunch quoted Uber chief executive Travis Kalanick responding to the post. His statement read: “What she describes is abhorrent and against everything Uber stands for and believes in.” That is Kalanick’s statement, reported at the time, and it does not confirm the specific allegations.
Rank #2
On February 20, 2017, Kalanick’s internal memo, as reproduced by TechCrunch, announced an independent review of the workplace environment and diversity issues. The company named former U.S. attorney general Eric Holder and Covington & Burling partner Tammy Albarran to lead it.
The memo’s workforce figure
The same memo reported that women made up 15.1% of employees across engineering, product management, and scientist roles. TechCrunch reported that this share had not changed substantially in the prior year. Keep the denominator in view: the figure covers those three role groups, not Uber’s whole workforce. TechCrunch also cautioned that the comparisons the memo drew with other companies were inaccurate, so those comparisons should not be repeated as fact.
What the Holder review recommended
The review was publicly discussed in June 2017. SHRM, a human resources professional publication, summarized 46 recommendations from it. As SHRM described them, the recommendations included stronger board oversight, internal controls, and a higher profile for the company’s diversity officer. SHRM’s coverage is a secondary summary, not the full report, and the 46 figure counts recommendations; it is not a measure of employee experience.
Uber said its board accepted the recommendations. The company’s statement, as reported by SHRM in June 2017, read: “Implementing these recommendations will improve our culture, promote fairness and accountability, and establish processes and systems to ensure the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.” That is the company’s own position on its remedies, not an independent evaluation of them.
Fowler’s response to the review
Fowler criticized the review’s findings publicly. Her reaction is reported in coverage from the period, including The Washington Post. Her criticism is a view about the inquiry and its conclusions. It does not mean she endorsed the company’s account, and it does not mean the recommendations proved her allegations.
The two accounts serve different purposes, and the table below compares them directly.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
| Dimension | Fowler’s post (February 2017) | Holder review and recommendations (2017) |
|---|---|---|
| Purpose | Describe her own experience and why internal channels failed her | Examine workplace environment and diversity and propose changes |
| Source | Her first-person account | Company-commissioned review, summarized by SHRM and Uber |
| Standpoint | Former employee making allegations | Company-appointed reviewers writing recommendations for the company |
| What it establishes | What she says happened to her | Recommended leadership, board, and systems changes |
| Her later view | Publicly critical of the review’s findings (June 2017) | Accepted by Uber’s board, per the company |
Timeline
| Date | Event | Source as reported |
|---|---|---|
| February 19, 2017 | Fowler’s blog post appears; Kalanick responds publicly | Contemporary TechCrunch coverage |
| February 20, 2017 | Kalanick’s memo announces an independent review led by Holder and Albarran; reports the 15.1% workforce figure | TechCrunch reproduction of the memo |
| June 2017 | Review recommendations publicized (46 recommendations); Uber says the board accepted them; Fowler publicly criticizes the findings | SHRM coverage; Washington Post reporting on her reaction |
| February 2020 | The Washington Post publishes a first-person excerpt from her memoir with a retrospective account | Washington Post |
What the record does and does not establish
- The post triggered an urgent investigation. It was a catalyst for scrutiny, not the sole cause of every later executive departure or policy change at Uber.
- The allegations are Fowler’s account. None of the sources here independently adjudicates each event she describes.
- The review’s 46 recommendations are proposed remedies. Uber’s statement that its board accepted them describes the company’s decision, not a verified outcome.
- Fowler’s 2020 excerpt is first-person retrospective testimony. It adds her perspective on the experience and its aftermath, but it is not independent corroboration.
- Uber’s later public statements on arbitration, confidentiality, and safety reporting concern its broader platform safety approach. They should not be read as outcomes of Fowler’s employee complaint.
Further reading
For Fowler’s full account, read her memoir, Whistleblower: My Journey to Silicon Valley and Fight for Justice at Uber. Her post itself is the primary source for her allegations, and the SHRM coverage of the review is the most accessible secondary summary of its recommendations.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
