4 ms·

Incidentally, what Damore did is probably a 'concerted protected activity' (his stated goal is to take actions that improve working conditions by making the job

Incidentally, what Damore did is probably a 'concerted protected activity' (his stated goal is to take actions that improve working conditions by making the job less stressful, increase diversity, etc) covered by the NLRB, and thus Google quite possibly broke the law in firing him for the memo. That's not protecting the company. EDIT: I forgot to add that from the coverage I've seen, there are also claims that Google management is illegally sharing hiring blacklists (based on a person's perceived political views) with other companies. That would also be very serious.

Tasboo 9y ago
Damore can claim he was protecting the company, but if the effect of what he said in his memo is causing the opposite of that, then it can be a fire-able offense, regardless of what he said he was trying to do.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  It's not about whether Damore was trying to protect the company, it's about whether Damore was communicating with his coworkers about ways to improve working conditions. It is illegal to fire someone for doing so. Damore presents several ideas about improving working conditions, claiming this would also increase diversity. If I was paranoid I'd say he wrote the memo with the possibility of being illegally fired in mind, because it appears to have been written carefully with that angle in mind.
vkou 9y ago
If you are trying to improve working conditions, and in doing so creating a hostile working environment, your employer is obligated to fire you. If they don't, they can be sued by other employees. And let me tell you, while you may not feel that this memo has created a hostile working environment, a lot of other people do. Google would drown in lawsuits if they let him stay on.
- peoplewindow 9y ago
  But would such lawsuits succeed? I don't see how you can argue that a single guy who isn't in management writing a memo creates a "hostile work environment". Most of the people complaining wouldn't even be working with him at all. They can file lawsuits but would they hold water? After all, management could just tell the lawsuit filers to be more tolerant of others: it's not like Damore was attacking individuals. So I don't see where Google's obligation to fire him comes from. Unpopularity with other employees does not make a legal obligation. On the other hand, firing someone who is trying to raise possibly illegal conduct with management does have legal implications.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > I don't see how you can argue that a single guy who isn't in management writing a memo creates a "hostile work environment". Employment law makes it very clear that person creating a hostile work environment doesn't have to be a manager. They can be a co-worker, a client, or a contractor.
    - peoplewindow 9y ago
      If you are correct, and I am not saying you're wrong, the term is so vague that more or less any disagreement that gets a bit personal could be considered creating a hostile work environment. No company would be able to operate in a situation where any disagreement could be leveraged to get the other person instantly fired, regardless of level or what the comments were about.
- Amezarak 9y ago
  The legal definitions of a hostile work environment is not simply based on how something makes you feel. It is very unlikely a hostile work environment suit for not firing Damore based on this memo would win, though of course Google might choose to settle.
  - vkou 9y ago
    > The legal definitions of a hostile work environment is not simply based on how something makes you feel. No, but the the entire point of that essay was to advance the idea that women are less successful because of their biology. [1] > It is very unlikely a hostile work environment for not firing him based on this memo would win, though of course Google might choose to settle. Any employment lawyers want to chime in on this? [1] "For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation."
ballenf 9y ago
Unless the fine/settlement is cheaper than keeping him, which it likely will be unless it results in some larger investigation or monitoring program.
- davrosthedalek 9y ago
  If somebody elects to break the law because it was cheaper (even if caught), the law has to change to make it more expensive. Also, if it is perceived widely that Google broke the law, "do no evil" is out the window. That would cost them dearly.

Tasboo 9y ago

Damore can claim he was protecting the company, but if the effect of what he said in his memo is causing the opposite of that, then it can be a fire-able offense, regardless of what he said he was trying to do.

Amezarak 9y ago
It's not about whether Damore was trying to protect the company, it's about whether Damore was communicating with his coworkers about ways to improve working conditions. It is illegal to fire someone for doing so. Damore presents several ideas about improving working conditions, claiming this would also increase diversity. If I was paranoid I'd say he wrote the memo with the possibility of being illegally fired in mind, because it appears to have been written carefully with that angle in mind.

vkou 9y ago

If you are trying to improve working conditions, and in doing so creating a hostile working environment, your employer is obligated to fire you. If they don't, they can be sued by other employees. And let me tell you, while you may not feel that this memo has created a hostile working environment, a lot of other people do. Google would drown in lawsuits if they let him stay on.

peoplewindow 9y ago
But would such lawsuits succeed? I don't see how you can argue that a single guy who isn't in management writing a memo creates a "hostile work environment". Most of the people complaining wouldn't even be working with him at all. They can file lawsuits but would they hold water? After all, management could just tell the lawsuit filers to be more tolerant of others: it's not like Damore was attacking individuals. So I don't see where Google's obligation to fire him comes from. Unpopularity with other employees does not make a legal obligation. On the other hand, firing someone who is trying to raise possibly illegal conduct with management does have legal implications.
- vkou 9y ago
  > I don't see how you can argue that a single guy who isn't in management writing a memo creates a "hostile work environment". Employment law makes it very clear that person creating a hostile work environment doesn't have to be a manager. They can be a co-worker, a client, or a contractor.
  - peoplewindow 9y ago
    If you are correct, and I am not saying you're wrong, the term is so vague that more or less any disagreement that gets a bit personal could be considered creating a hostile work environment. No company would be able to operate in a situation where any disagreement could be leveraged to get the other person instantly fired, regardless of level or what the comments were about.
Amezarak 9y ago
The legal definitions of a hostile work environment is not simply based on how something makes you feel. It is very unlikely a hostile work environment suit for not firing Damore based on this memo would win, though of course Google might choose to settle.
- vkou 9y ago
  > The legal definitions of a hostile work environment is not simply based on how something makes you feel. No, but the the entire point of that essay was to advance the idea that women are less successful because of their biology. [1] > It is very unlikely a hostile work environment for not firing him based on this memo would win, though of course Google might choose to settle. Any employment lawyers want to chime in on this? [1] "For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation."

ballenf 9y ago

Unless the fine/settlement is cheaper than keeping him, which it likely will be unless it results in some larger investigation or monitoring program.

davrosthedalek 9y ago
If somebody elects to break the law because it was cheaper (even if caught), the law has to change to make it more expensive. Also, if it is perceived widely that Google broke the law, "do no evil" is out the window. That would cost them dearly.