4 ms·

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 s

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.

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.