> Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for. Is there a lawsuit already? I can't find any news about it. > I agree, is a fruitless debate in sem

> Coincidentally, this is what Damore is suing Google for. Is there a lawsuit already? I can't find any news about it. > I agree, is a fruitless debate in semantics That's my point about this discussion, it became about interpretation of laws. We can continue to argue forever here, but ultimately it will be up to the courts, if he pursues legal action, to decide the correct interpretation. > The legal case in Canada was set as precedent for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, an international law document, by the UN, which the U.S is a part of and an adopter of said document. "International law" is a vague term that carries little weight. It has no "law" power unless any country actually formally agrees and implements internal laws with the same effect. So, again, it carries no weight here. > There are certain actions a company can take, no matter its size or circumstance, that illegal due to precedent. That could illegal due to precedent. > Here is an NLBR ruling against codes of conduct, which Google has violated Again, you make the claim that Google has violated, with nothing but your opinion to back it. And from your own source: A policy that is written in the context of unprotected comments toward coworkers (e.g., unlawfully harassing comments), rather than protected criticism of the employer, will be deemed lawful. That's what Google claims that the author violated, and apparently was fired for. Remember, California is an at-will employment state. You can fire someone for ANY reason except a few clearly defined reasons. The burden of proof is on you to show that Google has fired for one of those reasons, not on Google (or me) to show that the firing WASN'T for those reasons. Google doesn't have to justify a firing at all.