Former Tradeshift CEO Christian Lanng is accused of enslaving, torturing, and sexually abusing his assistant in a new lawsuit

A former Bay Area tech CEO was fired earlier this year after allegedly enslaving, torturing, and sexually abusing his assistant. He claims the pair had a consensual relationship that people would “celebrate” if it were fictitious.

Former Tradeshift CEO Christian Lanng denied the allegations levied against him and the billion-dollar company he co-founded that were made by a former employee in court Thursday.

"The shocking and vile claims in the lawsuit are categorically false, and I reject allegations that I subjected someone to any form of abuse during my tenure as CEO or at any other time of my life,” Lanng told The Messenger.

In the complaint, an unidentified woman alleged that Lanng sent her into “a dark abyss of unwanted sexual horror," according to The Mercury News.

  • Azzu@lemm.ee
    405·
    11 months ago

    Based on the article they were together before working together. Because of that, while there may of course be elements where some position of power was abused after they started working together, it’s quite unlikely that everything here was against her will.

    This is likely a case where both people have been shitty to each other in some way.

    • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
      39·
      11 months ago

      The ex-CEO said that he was dating the woman who sued him before hiring her at Tradeshift in 2014, which he called a “grave error of judgment." He also noted that the “plaintiff went on to work for Tradeshift for approximately five more years after our relationship ended.”

      This raises so many red flags to me.

      I can’t comment on the alleged activities, and we don’t know her financial or emotional situation in 2014 when she was hired, but it sounds waaaay more complicated than “boss treats random new chick as sex slave”.

      I hope she’s in a better place now (mentally and emotionally).

      • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
        212·
        11 months ago

        Based on being together before she was hired. That is literally the opposite of baseless.

        He could very likely be very wrong in his assumptions - and they are assumptions - but definitely based on information provided.

        • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
          1010·
          11 months ago

          … but definitely based on information provided.

          Then look around for more info.

          He acknowledged the inappropriateness of hiring someone he was romantically involved with, calling it a “grave error of judgment,” but refuted any claims of abuse or harassment. Source

          Bryan Freedman, the plaintiff’s lawyer, denied Doe and Lanng ever dated. Source

          Filed with the lawsuit was the alleged nine-page slave contract that appears to have Lanng’s signature. Source

          The woman accused Lanng of trafficking her across countries including the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Japan, trips during which she was allegedly “sexually assaulted, including being bound against her will and beaten to the point of bleeding.” Source

          • ASeriesOfPoorChoices@lemmy.world
            173·
            11 months ago

            Huh? What is your point? We both agree that they are assumptions, and I wasn’t commenting on the accuracy of them. They could be wildly inaccurate.

            Only that they weren’t “baseless”. They were based in something. That’s it. End of discussion.

            Everything you’ve posted are just different bases for different assumptions - it doesn’t negate the basis, just changes the accuracy of them.

          • rambaroo@lemmy.world
            32·
            11 months ago

            But of course lemmy gives a rapey CEO the benefit of the doubt when it comes to abusing a woman. Any other topic and they’d be shitting on him. Fucking disgusting.

        • DogMuffins@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
          25·
          11 months ago

          The phrase “baseless assumptions” does not mean that no base was provided. It means that the purported base is inadequate to support a causal likelihood that the assumptions are true.

          Besides which, your argument is one of semantics, which you’re welcome to.