11 ms·
Google managers kept blacklists of conservative employees
- adrianlmm 9y ago“We look forward to defending against Mr. Damore’s lawsuit" Is not the typical PR answer when you got sued, you spect something like: "Here at Google we are against any kind of discrimination and we deny the alleged acusations, those do not represent our values" That is a typical PR answer, but instead they are practicality saying "yes we do all that terrible stuff, so bring it on".
- ebikelaw 9y agoKent Walker isn't your typical corporate lawyer. Kent Walker really does look forward to crushing his opponent in court. After Kent crushes this fool, he will probably host a company-wide Q&A where he will gloat over the bodies of his vanquished enemies.
- tdb7893 9y agoIt seems to me that it would make much more sense that they are looking forward to the case because they think they have a strong case that they DIDN'T do any of that stuff. It seems strange that they would look forward to a case where they were actually culpable.
- joshstrange 9y ago"alleges a new lawsuit" This is all speculation yet the title reads as fact. I'm not saying they didn't do it but let's get a title change to what is really happening here.
- sawmurai 9y agoCame hear to comment or read this. Thanks.
- malvosenior 9y agoI agree with you that we shouldn't be citing accusations as facts. I do wish that rule was equally applied though, there have been a ton of Ellen Pao articles on HN that say she was the victim of discrimination when in fact she lost her lawsuit and the court found no evidence to support her claims.
- lykr0n 9y agoI wish the same thing. There is a double standard where the shit can only role down the proverbial hill. As someone pointed out below, https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121 https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121, shows that lots of the evidence in the lawsuit is "It's perfectly fine if [the left-leaning] do it, but unacceptable if someone else does"
- pnw_hazor 9y agoThere are pictures. Screenshots of managers saying they keep black-lists.
- avs733 9y agoThe article is very specific about using the title with the conditional. I think it is problematic that the condtional is appended as an end clause in the headline rather than being upfront about it. Dropping the clause from the HN headline is even more problematic because it removes that conditional entirely. As for the pictures, the only one in the article has nothing to do with black-lists of conservatives, it reads to me like keeping a list of ah*s. In this case, specifically those who make the propagation of a company value difficult. That screenshot doesn't say anything about political affiliation or beliefs. It is focused on actions. If you think any company doesn't have an implicit or even explicit list of 'capable but frustrating employees' you are in for a shock. Being a conservative may well be a protected class in California, but being a jerk and interfering with the entirely legal strategic goals set by management isn't. The first is about the views you hold, and should be protected. The second is about the things you do at work, and shouldn't be protected.
- theptip 9y agoWhile I agree with your general point about being careful with treating accusations as facts, this is how every major news outlet does headlines. <h1>Famous person murders family member</h1> <h4>court case alleges</h4>
- thehardsphere 9y agoThe lawsuit contains screenshots and other evidence that serves as an effective prima facie case for workplace discrimination. It's not really correct to say it's "speculation", which kind of implies someone just made a bunch of stuff up or is guessing as to what behavior takes place inside Google. On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial. That said, Google should have an opportunity to counter the claims if they have a defense and evidence to support it.
- forapurpose 9y ago> On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial. Is that based on some experience in HR, employment lawsuits, or the law?
- thehardsphere 9y agoWell, the law is that it's illegal to not hire someone based on their race. The lawsuit contains screenshots of people saying they don't want to hire people who are white. So, if there's no rebuttal (e.g. Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say "this is a fake screenshot" or "it's taken out of context" or "the hiring practice is not illegal for this reason" or "this person has no say over what the hiring practice is" or whatever), those screenshots would be the only evidence at trial. Uncontested, they depict a company that doesn’t want to hire white people because they are white. Google has to provide evidence to the contrary in their response. That's how any court proceeding works. All I'm saying about the lawsuit is that it's not on-its-face without merit. That doesn't mean Damore is right, it just means Google has to offer a defense since the plantiff has at least shown that there is a reason to believe the claims might be true and demonstrate illegal behavior on Google's part.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- forapurpose 9y ago> Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say ... Google's lawyer tries the case in court, not on Twitter. The lack of debate doesn't signify anything.
- Knufen 9y agoI wonder if the progressive left realize that the inevitable reaction to sacrificing all reason at the altar of progress, is a rise to the right PS. Sorry for the poor sentencing structure, not as fluid in English as I used to be
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y agoWhat? You think the right is more reasoned than the left? Come on. Besides you don't think there are workplaces where it's a blackmark to be a progressive? Why don't you come over to some finance jobs?
- Knufen 9y agoI never said the right is more reasoned than the left. I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right. This is just natural action-reaction. You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago>You are putting quite a lot of meaning into my sentence that isn't there, projecting is never useful in a discussion. Okay. >I said that currently the progressive-left is sacrificing reason and that it will lead to a rise to the right. No they're not. How is it that you think the 'progressive-left' is sacrificing reason?
- malvosenior 9y agoHere's a really good summary of other things in the lawsuit with screencaps: https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121 https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121 If even half of that is true, then I'm really grateful that this lawsuit is bringing these actions to light, this is unacceptable. EDIT: Really unfortunate that this article got flagged. It's important and we should be able to discuss it.
- gamblor956 9y agoThis is not a fact, it's an unproven allegation in a lawsuit filed by a known fraud represented by a lawyer known to have engage in unethical misrepresentations. The lawsuit is hoping to find evidence of this spurious claim of it makes it to the discovery stage. Edit: His lawyer has made multiple misrepresentations of voter fraud in California, going as far as accusing innocent individuals of voter fraud. She's been investigated by the CA State Bar several times for unethical behavior. As for Damore, he's made several false statements about his time at treatment at Google that have been refuted by multiple non-biased sources.
- malvosenior 9y agoI didn't say it was a fact, I said it was a summary of what is alleged in the lawsuit. It does include evidence though and I haven't seen anyone deny it. I have also seen Google and other tech giant employees tweet out stuff like this regularly so it seems very likely to be true. But it's not a fact yet, just accusations as you say.
- thehardsphere 9y agoCould you please cite sources that prove that Mr. Damore is a fraud and that his lawyer has done unethical things? This is the first I've ever heard of either claim.
- dvfjsdhgfv 9y agoI don't know how they could make these things up and get away with it: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTCqa-XX0AA6DJs.jpg https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTCqa-XX0AA6DJs.jpg There is the name of the person, their message sent to other Google employees, that they got reported to HR - how on Earth could this be an "unproved allegation"? It's all easily verifiable. If Damore and his lawyer were fabricating this, it would be an equivalent of a professional suicide. And an incredibly stupid and pointless thing to do.
- ENGNR 9y agoIs 'conservative' even a protected class? It seems like the kind of thing conservatives would argue against to be honest Can a progressive company refuse to hire non-progressive people based on cultural unsuitability? Religious organisations seem to think it's ok
- malvosenior 9y agoPolitical affiliation is a protected class in California. Race and gender are both protected classes at a federal level. As I understand it, his class action lawsuit is on all three fronts.
- masterleep 9y agoIn California, employment discrimination based on "political activities or affiliation" is prohibited.
- theptip 9y agoI was under the impression that "Conservatives" were not a protected class, but then I found this as I was looking for a citation to back it up: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen... This includes "Political affiliations or activities", and other sources seem to back that up. Google might be in trouble here.
- rwbcxrz 9y ago> Whether expressing anti-diversity sentiments at a workplace is a protected “conservative viewpoint” or, rather, a form of bigotry that actually creates a hostile environment is at the heart of the case Expressing anti-diversity sentiments does create a hostile environment. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
- Knufen 9y agoThere is a very big difference between expressing anti-diversity sentiments and expressing anti-diversity-for-the-sake-of-diversity sentiments. I do believe most people tend to the latter and not the former.
- malvosenior 9y agoI think the problem is that "diversity" has come to mean "bash white males", so being speaking out against that seems natural. EDIT: instead of replying to each of you who say this doesn't happen, please look at my link of the evidence being submitted in this case to see that it does happen (or someone is faking a ton of evidence): https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121 https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121
- avs733 9y agono it hasn't, that's just a convenient narrative pushed by a group of people who are trying avoid the bad press from using their real slogans that say things like 'diversity is white genocide'
- forapurpose 9y agoIf we're going to discuss it, I'd say let's all stick to facts we can cite and eliminate the charged or hyperbolic language (e.g., "bash"). > "diversity" has come to mean "bash white males" I've heard many partisans against diversity say that, but it has not been something I've observed myself. IMHO and IME, it's the reverse: Criticism of white men is limited because it will alienate and provoke too many powerful people (white men having an large bmajority of power). Racism and sexism are very widespread and overwhelming, but many white guys are somehow not very aware of it. Look at what's been happening with women right under everyone's noses for all this time, and the #metoo movement is just bringing it to light; women are just now criticizing these men. There should have been more criticism for many years.
- _cerv 9y agoI _feel_ like that this is a pretty common practice in our industry. At a previous employer, we had someone who was dyed in the wool Republican that was outspoken in his personal life about "the blue line" and "all lives matter". When it came to a discussion for a promotion for a senior engineering role for this individual, we had another manager who felt uncomfortable having an employee with the views this guy shared. Mind you, at work, he was pretty polite and you only got an insight into his life if you accepted his friend request or saw the bumpersticker on his car in the garage.
- nindalf 9y agoThis doesn't seem wrong... until I think of a person being passed over for a promotion for expressing to friends in private that Black Lives Matter.
- gvb 9y agoA concrete example is Brendan Eich who was forced to resign in 2014 as Mozilla CEO over his personal contribution of $1,000 in 2008 in support of California's Proposition 8 (a now-overturned 2008 gay-marriage ban). Ref: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/ https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozilla-ceo-resignation-free-speech/7328759/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/04/mozill...
- flycaliguy 9y agoA stance which he shared with Obama at the time.
- dragonwriter 9y agoObama was a public opponent of Prop 8; he did not share Eich’s stance on the effort to enshrine discrimination in the California Constitution.
- twobyfour 9y agoThere's also a difference between discriminating against people for their political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) and choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees -- which appears to have been the intention of the managers in question.
- dominotw 9y ago> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) It is in some states in USA
- SteveNuts 9y agoWhich states?
- mieseratte 9y agoCalifornia, at least, where the alleged incidents took place. I encourage anyone interested in the situation to read the filed suit. The first 20 or so pages are specifically about Damore and it is a very approachable and an interesting read. It also specifies the alleged violated laws / section.
- thehardsphere 9y agoMost significantly, it is partially protected in California.
- ng12 9y ago> political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) Where's the line? Is being pro-life a political or a religious beliefs?
- ep103 9y agoThis is why you don't mention your political or religious beliefs in the workplace. That said, other commenters are saying political affiliation is protected in california.
- dominotw 9y agoI keep hearing about all kinds of lists lately. Some seem to think these are good idea. > IS IT FINALLY TIME TO TAKE THE 'SHITTY MEDIA MEN' LIST SERIOUSLY? http://www.newsweek.com/it-finally-time-take-shitty-media-men-list-seriously-762260 http://www.newsweek.com/it-finally-time-take-shitty-media-me... Feels a bit soviet union-esq to me. But the left seems to be rallying behind ideas like these, lets see how this turns out.
- avs733 9y agoDoes anyone else see the irony in a political ideology that is against anti-discrimination provisions in law being suddenly running to the legal system when they feel discriminated against?
- ng12 9y ago> against anti-discrimination provisions Says who?
- avs733 9y agohttp://lmgtfy.com/?q=conservatives+against+anti+discrimination+laws http://lmgtfy.com/?q=conservatives+against+anti+discriminati...
- thehardsphere 9y agoWell, I have two thoughts about that. 1. Is Damore against "anti-discrimination provisions in law"? I haven't seen anything to suggest he is. He is against specific anti-discrimination policies at Google, certainly, but his objection to them seemed to be on the basis that they wouldn't be effective and would have other negative effects, not that anti-discrimination is undesirable. 2. If we assume Damore is a "classical liberal" (I think he called himself that in the memo), then he could have an entirely non-ironic desire to see the law enforced that is separate from whether or not he thinks any specific law is wise. This may seem silly (and I personally think it is in cases where a law is obviously stupid and unenforceable), but it's not on-its-face ridiculous, unless there's a quote somewhere that shows he really has contempt for the particular laws he's claiming protection from. I'd bet right now you're not going to find such a quote, since it seems like he's been planning this lawsuit for months before he got fired, just based on what screenshots were in the lawsuit.
- tenpoundhammer 9y ago> The lawsuit cites another post from another hiring manager that said, “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my [d*ckhead] box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly).” It's definitely illegal to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. I'm thinking the discovery process is going to find a lot of legitimate issues, if the the lawyer bringing the suit has already found stuff like this. Maybe the lawyer was using this blacklist stuff as a way to get more information and find bigger problems.
- Null-Set 9y agoAn opinion about religion is not a religious belief. Saying "I don't believe Muhammad was a prophet" is a religious belief, but saying "Islam breeds terrorism" is not.
- justherefortart 9y agoWhy is this flagged? WTF?
- scaryspooky 9y agoThe title posted left out a portion of the actual articles title that is relevant.
- justherefortart 9y agoYeah because actually clicking through is super difficult.
- andrenth 9y agoThe HN book burn.