5 ms·

Cutting a check for 3-6 months severance as a sign of good faith, wrapped up in an NDA. There's no cause for anything more than that.

by jjirsa 9y ago

notyourday 9y ago
Leverage. Government lawsuit against Google right now means that he has the leverage. The odds are the same people who are tasked with the programs to promote whatever the author carefully worded in his post are the people who received/sent emails/edited internal presentations that mentioned something that a good lawyer would be able to twist into a Google's managers admitting that Google does in fact systematically pays women less than men to do the same job. Google has a lot more to lose from that lawsuit than from the author of the memo. [Edit: typos/clarity]
- fellellor 9y ago
  Do you mean the US government would sue google on this guy's behalf? I would think, with all they have on their plate right now, they can't be bothered about some idiot who couldn't keep his mouth shut in public and just do the job he was hired for.
  - notyourday 9y ago
    Not at all. There's a lawsuit against Google: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... Government's problem in this case is the same kind of problem that government had in the US v. IBM: IBM buried government in the paperwork and government did not know where to look at to dig itself out. Here comes the author who seems to have a very good idea of the remediation programs that Google has. The odds are extremely high the people in charge of the remediation programs/diversity programs/etc are the ones who are familiar with the issues that Google has: it is fairly logical. The author probably knows who these people are. He probably talked to them. Probably those people told him whatever he used as the basis for his manifesto. If he drags those people out into the spotlight, the government would suddenly have a beacon for their case. That's why I, personally, think Google made a gigantic mistake firing the guy.
    - fellellor 9y ago
      This is pretty interesting. Though I think Google is right to fire this guy, the collateral damage to themselves is an interesting thing to follow. Whether he was right or wrong, he has hurt the company. I think he is wrong to be sure. But it doesn't matter. It is also interesting because, a loss in a major legal case may throw up interesting possibilities in the stock market. Of course, one needs to be much more legally aware, than I am, to take full advantage of these possibilities.
    - mirimir 9y ago
      OK, but the Department of Labor suit claims that Google "discriminated against its female employees". And Damore almost claims reverse discrimination. So I don't get how they'd work together. However, Damore did file a NLRB claim before he was fired. So he seems prepped to sue, or perhaps to negotiate a private settlement.
      - notyourday 9y ago
        They do not need to work together. DOL would just rely on the information that sees a light of day because of the author's lawsuit. Without a lawsuit: DOL gets two million "records" (emails/docs/memos) related to hiring/performance evaluation/etc. It needs to sift through those two million records trying to find the ones that support its case. With this lawsuit: author knows who in the organization deals with this exact issue. Those people probably had emails from their managers/sent emails to others that can be made to support governments position in DOL lawsuit. Now instead of sifting through the two million records that they got, DOL focuses on 20,000 records authored by those likely to have the kind of information. That's why such dismissals are dangerous to the company engaged in a costly/high-stakes litigation with the government.
mc32 9y ago
Those checks Apple had to pay for Jobs mouthing off "you're fired" at semi-random employees did not come with only a six month severance despite "at will" work contract. I imagine this ex-employee will get a generous severance or expect good lawyers knocking soon.
- fellellor 9y ago
  I thought Jobs was a founder, not just some grunt. Maybe being an owner put him in a much better position than this guy currently finds himself in.
  - mc32 9y ago
    Of course. My point is those tantrum firings cost him a million or two at a time --despite at will work.
    - fellellor 9y ago
      This doesn't look like a tantrum firing. He created too much drama for his own good. As an owner, anyone would find that distracting and unnecessary. This certainly doesn't advance the company's interest in any way. Now whether he is able to successfully sue google and make big bucks is difficult to predict at this point. But it's certain that his career is finished for the foreseeable future. It is a profoundly stupid thing to do for anyone who likes their job as an engineer. Maybe this guy doesn't and wants to start a new career in blogging or some similar shit. In that case, this may be a great new start for him.
      - mc32 9y ago
        It's not a tantrum firing but it's also not a firing with cause and it steers close to free speech. If Pao could sue KPC&B, I think he stands a chance, unrelated as they are, it suggests suits can go forward on slim allegations and here he has evidence clear as day they fired him for having a difference in opinion on their hiring practices. He personally didn't discriminate nor personally conduct himself untowards anyone. He offered some (unconvincing evidence about how women don't have the same aptitude as men --but you are likely to find evidence Google does have internal hiring goals and allows a culture which virtue signals against the majority culture) and they didn't like it. Thing is, if this had been a woman or minority citing some dubious data about how more women and minorities should be hired (which I agree with but on other principles), we would not even blink at it, if it even would have surfaced)
gaius 9y ago
How does an NDA apply when his name is already public knowledge?

Cutting a check for 3-6 months severance as a sign of good faith, wrapped up in an NDA. There's no cause for anything more than that.

by jjirsa 9y ago

Cutting a check for 3-6 months severance as a sign of good faith, wrapped up in an NDA. There's no cause for anything more than that.

notyourday 9y ago

Leverage. Government lawsuit against Google right now means that he has the leverage. The odds are the same people who are tasked with the programs to promote whatever the author carefully worded in his post are the people who received/sent emails/edited internal presentations that mentioned something that a good lawyer would be able to twist into a Google's managers admitting that Google does in fact systematically pays women less than men to do the same job. Google has a lot more to lose from that lawsuit than from the author of the memo. [Edit: typos/clarity]

fellellor 9y ago
Do you mean the US government would sue google on this guy's behalf? I would think, with all they have on their plate right now, they can't be bothered about some idiot who couldn't keep his mouth shut in public and just do the job he was hired for.
- notyourday 9y ago
  Not at all. There's a lawsuit against Google: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pay-disparities-women-labor-department-lawsuit https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/07/google-pa... Government's problem in this case is the same kind of problem that government had in the US v. IBM: IBM buried government in the paperwork and government did not know where to look at to dig itself out. Here comes the author who seems to have a very good idea of the remediation programs that Google has. The odds are extremely high the people in charge of the remediation programs/diversity programs/etc are the ones who are familiar with the issues that Google has: it is fairly logical. The author probably knows who these people are. He probably talked to them. Probably those people told him whatever he used as the basis for his manifesto. If he drags those people out into the spotlight, the government would suddenly have a beacon for their case. That's why I, personally, think Google made a gigantic mistake firing the guy.
  - fellellor 9y ago
    This is pretty interesting. Though I think Google is right to fire this guy, the collateral damage to themselves is an interesting thing to follow. Whether he was right or wrong, he has hurt the company. I think he is wrong to be sure. But it doesn't matter. It is also interesting because, a loss in a major legal case may throw up interesting possibilities in the stock market. Of course, one needs to be much more legally aware, than I am, to take full advantage of these possibilities.
  - mirimir 9y ago
    OK, but the Department of Labor suit claims that Google "discriminated against its female employees". And Damore almost claims reverse discrimination. So I don't get how they'd work together. However, Damore did file a NLRB claim before he was fired. So he seems prepped to sue, or perhaps to negotiate a private settlement.
    - notyourday 9y ago
      They do not need to work together. DOL would just rely on the information that sees a light of day because of the author's lawsuit. Without a lawsuit: DOL gets two million "records" (emails/docs/memos) related to hiring/performance evaluation/etc. It needs to sift through those two million records trying to find the ones that support its case. With this lawsuit: author knows who in the organization deals with this exact issue. Those people probably had emails from their managers/sent emails to others that can be made to support governments position in DOL lawsuit. Now instead of sifting through the two million records that they got, DOL focuses on 20,000 records authored by those likely to have the kind of information. That's why such dismissals are dangerous to the company engaged in a costly/high-stakes litigation with the government.

mc32 9y ago

Those checks Apple had to pay for Jobs mouthing off "you're fired" at semi-random employees did not come with only a six month severance despite "at will" work contract. I imagine this ex-employee will get a generous severance or expect good lawyers knocking soon.

fellellor 9y ago
I thought Jobs was a founder, not just some grunt. Maybe being an owner put him in a much better position than this guy currently finds himself in.
- mc32 9y ago
  Of course. My point is those tantrum firings cost him a million or two at a time --despite at will work.
  - fellellor 9y ago
    This doesn't look like a tantrum firing. He created too much drama for his own good. As an owner, anyone would find that distracting and unnecessary. This certainly doesn't advance the company's interest in any way. Now whether he is able to successfully sue google and make big bucks is difficult to predict at this point. But it's certain that his career is finished for the foreseeable future. It is a profoundly stupid thing to do for anyone who likes their job as an engineer. Maybe this guy doesn't and wants to start a new career in blogging or some similar shit. In that case, this may be a great new start for him.
    - mc32 9y ago
      It's not a tantrum firing but it's also not a firing with cause and it steers close to free speech. If Pao could sue KPC&B, I think he stands a chance, unrelated as they are, it suggests suits can go forward on slim allegations and here he has evidence clear as day they fired him for having a difference in opinion on their hiring practices. He personally didn't discriminate nor personally conduct himself untowards anyone. He offered some (unconvincing evidence about how women don't have the same aptitude as men --but you are likely to find evidence Google does have internal hiring goals and allows a culture which virtue signals against the majority culture) and they didn't like it. Thing is, if this had been a woman or minority citing some dubious data about how more women and minorities should be hired (which I agree with but on other principles), we would not even blink at it, if it even would have surfaced)

gaius 9y ago

How does an NDA apply when his name is already public knowledge?