4 ms·

>This article mentions that in California there is no protection of freedom of speech in employment (i.e. a company can terminate you for voicing an opinion it

>This article mentions that in California there is no protection of freedom of speech in employment (i.e. a company can terminate you for voicing an opinion it doesn't want voiced), but this seems to be the premise of Damore's unfair dismissal claim? Uh, no, actually, it's been reported many times in many other places that Damore's claim is that he was speaking out in an effort to improve working conditions at Google, and federal law prohibits the dismissal of an employee for engaging in that sort of activity. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-08-22/why-fired-engineer-james-damore-may-have-a-federal-case-against-google https://www.usnews.com/opinion/op-ed/articles/2017-08-22/why...

Berobero 9y ago
> effort to improve working conditions I'd assume the bar for this, though, is far higher than just claiming it. Obviously we're not not dealing with a clear cut poor working conditions like no restroom on site, or constant verbal abuse, etc; the meat of the contention seems to be that he wasn't allowed to discuss company policy with coworkers in regards to a politically sensitive subject, and that people with political views that don't cleanly align with that policy feel ostracized. That seems pretty close to "my freedom of speech wasn't protected". Regardless, it feels like the litigation is somewhat lacking in merit unless Damore can cleanly tie it back issues that made his day to day job difficult to perform (i.e. bona fide poor working conditions).