4 ms·

Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.

by sidlls 9y ago

skissane 9y ago
> Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class. In California, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their political beliefs [1], so to that extent particular political ideologies (including conservatism) can be viewed as protected classes. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1101.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Fair question: if one identifies as conservative to the extent as regarding women as less capable than men, is that still protected?
  - Veelox 9y ago
    Fair question: if one identifies as liberal to the extent as regarding Trump voters as less capable than Hilary voters, is that still protected?
    - IWeldMelons 9y ago
      What about Bernie or Stein voters?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    I wouldn't consider that viewpoint, as you describe it, a very conservative one.
- debt 9y ago
  This isn’t what those things are saying. The first is preventing rules and regulations that guide the political beliefs of employees. The second is a law against threatening to fire an employees for their political beliefs. Discrimination is something totally different. Damore was fired for espousing gender discrimination; again, because gender discrimination is very illegal.
- gowld 9y ago
  In context, that appears to be referring to voting or supporting a candidate in elections, not for discussing platforms or issues.
  - bduerst 9y ago
    i.e. Promoting political viewpoints at work is not protected speech, especially when it's disruptive.
  - randyrand 9y ago
    The line between those seems quite thin. Showing support for a candidate is quite literally showing support for a certain set of platforms or political idea.
    - gowld 9y ago
      Yes, but the converse is less clear, which is why supporting ideas is more acceptable than campaigning for a candidate.
  - finnthehuman 9y ago
    No. You can't put the law "in context" while outright ignoring case law. Courts have consistently found 1101 and 1102 to offer broad protection. I'm not a lawyer, nor want to do the research. AIUI from learned legal commentary, the broadness has not been tested for exactly this sort of issue, but that doesn't make it slam-dunk unprotected either. You're claiming to put something "in context," but rather than clarify you're obscuring. This type of fake-smart comment is what makes me hate hacker news.
    - gowld 9y ago
      It's not "fake-smart" to read a document and try to understand it. Refusing to do research yet making uncited authoritative claims strikes me as far more "fake-smart" This type of arrogant hostile condescension makes me unhappy with with Hacker News.
twtw 9y ago
"Political affiliation" a protected class in California. Not saying this is necessarily the same as "conservative viewpoints," but it could be interpreted that way.
TheCoelacanth 9y ago
People organizing with other employees who share conservative views to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class, though, because people organizing with other employees to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class no matter what other descriptors you add.
- sidlls 9y ago
  "their" means employees', not just a subset of them. Suppose some people thought it'd improve their working conditions by freedom to share KKK rally times and places or organize porn watching parties at the workplace. The law isn't some robotic computer of legal rules. Context often matters.
  - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
    They certainly don't need to be seeking improvements that benefit every single employee. For example, employees seeking to get paid maternity leave would be a protected activity even though it doesn't benefit all employees. The KKK or porn examples would be an exception because it would create a hostile work environment for some employees to even suggest that, not because it would only benefit certain employees. If Damore had only been trying to organize action to get improved work conditions for conservative employees, that would be protected activity and the NRLB opinion says as much. Google was careful to make clear that they were only disciplining him for parts of his memo that were likely to create a hostile work environment for other employees, that is something that they are not only allowed, but possibly required, to discipline employees for.

Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.

by sidlls 9y ago

Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class.

> Having "conservative viewpoints" is not a protected class. In California, it is illegal for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of their political beliefs [1], so to that extent particular political ideologies (including conservatism) can be viewed as protected classes. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1101.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1102.&lawCode=LAB https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...

rbanffy 9y ago
Fair question: if one identifies as conservative to the extent as regarding women as less capable than men, is that still protected?
- Veelox 9y ago
  Fair question: if one identifies as liberal to the extent as regarding Trump voters as less capable than Hilary voters, is that still protected?
  - IWeldMelons 9y ago
    What about Bernie or Stein voters?
- ghaff 9y ago
  I wouldn't consider that viewpoint, as you describe it, a very conservative one.
debt 9y ago
This isn’t what those things are saying. The first is preventing rules and regulations that guide the political beliefs of employees. The second is a law against threatening to fire an employees for their political beliefs. Discrimination is something totally different. Damore was fired for espousing gender discrimination; again, because gender discrimination is very illegal.
gowld 9y ago
In context, that appears to be referring to voting or supporting a candidate in elections, not for discussing platforms or issues.
- bduerst 9y ago
  i.e. Promoting political viewpoints at work is not protected speech, especially when it's disruptive.
- randyrand 9y ago
  The line between those seems quite thin. Showing support for a candidate is quite literally showing support for a certain set of platforms or political idea.
  - gowld 9y ago
    Yes, but the converse is less clear, which is why supporting ideas is more acceptable than campaigning for a candidate.
- finnthehuman 9y ago
  No. You can't put the law "in context" while outright ignoring case law. Courts have consistently found 1101 and 1102 to offer broad protection. I'm not a lawyer, nor want to do the research. AIUI from learned legal commentary, the broadness has not been tested for exactly this sort of issue, but that doesn't make it slam-dunk unprotected either. You're claiming to put something "in context," but rather than clarify you're obscuring. This type of fake-smart comment is what makes me hate hacker news.
  - gowld 9y ago
    It's not "fake-smart" to read a document and try to understand it. Refusing to do research yet making uncited authoritative claims strikes me as far more "fake-smart" This type of arrogant hostile condescension makes me unhappy with with Hacker News.

twtw 9y ago

"Political affiliation" a protected class in California. Not saying this is necessarily the same as "conservative viewpoints," but it could be interpreted that way.

TheCoelacanth 9y ago

People organizing with other employees who share conservative views to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class, though, because people organizing with other employees to engage in concerted action to improve their working conditions is a protected class no matter what other descriptors you add.

sidlls 9y ago
"their" means employees', not just a subset of them. Suppose some people thought it'd improve their working conditions by freedom to share KKK rally times and places or organize porn watching parties at the workplace. The law isn't some robotic computer of legal rules. Context often matters.
- TheCoelacanth 9y ago
  They certainly don't need to be seeking improvements that benefit every single employee. For example, employees seeking to get paid maternity leave would be a protected activity even though it doesn't benefit all employees. The KKK or porn examples would be an exception because it would create a hostile work environment for some employees to even suggest that, not because it would only benefit certain employees. If Damore had only been trying to organize action to get improved work conditions for conservative employees, that would be protected activity and the NRLB opinion says as much. Google was careful to make clear that they were only disciplining him for parts of his memo that were likely to create a hostile work environment for other employees, that is something that they are not only allowed, but possibly required, to discipline employees for.