5 ms·

While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wro

While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wrote on his private blog, or discussed with coworkers at an off-site bar, that might be different. If he does sue, Google will have little problem showing that the employee, through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.

tyingq 9y ago
>While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987
stale2002 9y ago
California has very strong employee protection. Yes, even though it is "at will" there are still some very strong protections. For example, in California it is illegal to fire someone for "political activity", which this memo, debateably, may have been. It is also illegal in California to fire someone for bringing up workplace concerns (this falls under union/worker organizing laws). Finally, and most ironically, it is illegal to fire someone for bringing up discrimination concerns, EVEN IF those concerns turn out to be false/not illegal/not discrimination. This guy, debateably, was bringing up discrimination concerns.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  Is it debateable? It's a political document that starts by characterising differences between the political left and right. It states that Google's policies are explicitly discrimination, and not only illegal but motivated by "left ideology". How it could be more political or about discrimination concerns?
- occultist_throw 9y ago
  Read footnote 6. That to me, is a pretty smoking gun of a comment. "6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs" ....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).... Wonder if he has proof?
aianus 9y ago
He'll likely argue that he was whistleblowing on discriminatory hiring practices and was fired in retaliation. He may even have proof that Google won't want aired out in court and they'll settle.
abhi3 9y ago
Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct towards third parties). The case doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend.
whitemale 9y ago
> through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google. Can you point out the part of his memo that created a hostile environment for women?

tyingq 9y ago

>While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for? See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987

stale2002 9y ago

California has very strong employee protection. Yes, even though it is "at will" there are still some very strong protections. For example, in California it is illegal to fire someone for "political activity", which this memo, debateably, may have been. It is also illegal in California to fire someone for bringing up workplace concerns (this falls under union/worker organizing laws). Finally, and most ironically, it is illegal to fire someone for bringing up discrimination concerns, EVEN IF those concerns turn out to be false/not illegal/not discrimination. This guy, debateably, was bringing up discrimination concerns.

peoplewindow 9y ago
Is it debateable? It's a political document that starts by characterising differences between the political left and right. It states that Google's policies are explicitly discrimination, and not only illegal but motivated by "left ideology". How it could be more political or about discrimination concerns?
occultist_throw 9y ago
Read footnote 6. That to me, is a pretty smoking gun of a comment. "6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs" ....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done).... Wonder if he has proof?

aianus 9y ago

He'll likely argue that he was whistleblowing on discriminatory hiring practices and was fired in retaliation. He may even have proof that Google won't want aired out in court and they'll settle.

abhi3 9y ago

Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct towards third parties). The case doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend.

whitemale 9y ago

> through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google. Can you point out the part of his memo that created a hostile environment for women?