4 ms·
> “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shie
by notconservative 9y ago
> “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law.
Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.
- izacus 9y agoIsn't employment in places where these companies operate at-will? Meaning they can fire you because you waved your hair funny in the morning?
- HeyLaughingBoy 9y agoIn an at-will state, I can fire you because I don't like how you did your hair, but I can't fire you because you belong to a protected class.
- BookmarkSaver 9y agoYes, but (IANAL) if the employee suspects that there was an illegal reason behind it, they can probably sue and subpoena documents revealing management motivations. Like, sure, a manager could wake up and just fire you because they were grumpy. But if it is discovered that there was internal communications about their political opinions leading up to it, then there would be a case.
- jxdxbx 9y agoYou can be fired for your political opinions.
- notconservative 9y agoYes, but not if you're trying to organize to improve working conditions, because this is protected by the NRLA. If the NRLA believes only parts of Damore's memo were working towards improving working conditions and other parts were working to discriminate against women, which part is which. To someone that agrees with Damore, it looks like everyone mischaracterized his effort to improve working conditions as sexism. Then Google was able to use that as cover to fire him for protected organizing.
- JonnyNova 9y agoThere are certain legal limitations to that from the NLRA. tptacek goes into that in depth here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16396827 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16396827
- dragonwriter 9y agoYes, but there are still prohibited reasons for firing. Which labor organizing is one of; Damore charged that he was fired for organizing, the NLRB found that Google fired him for actions that fall outside of protected labor organizing.
- andrewprock 9y agoAllow me to suggest that both Google and the NLRB understood Damore's claim, and that any misunderstanding falls on the side of those who disagree with what they found.
- notconservative 9y agoThat's possible of course. But, I haven't read exactly what the NRLA found to be discriminatory. This would help anyone that is legitimately trying to improve working conditions and trying not to promote discrimination.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it. No, it doesn't. Because the interpretation of the firing company doesn't determine the legality. Whether, on the evidence, a firing is solely due to actually legally unprotected statements (not statements that the employer chooses to misconstrue as unprotected) is.
- Aunche 9y agoDisclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. People really did exaggerate how bad the memo really was. That said, it definitely has portions that brought up stereotypes without citing direct evidence, like how men have a higher drive to achieve status. Google considered these statements "discriminatory," which sounded reasonable enough to the NLRB. It doesn't matter whether these statements were actually discriminatory because they clearly fall outside the bounds of protected speech.
- leereeves 9y agoHe did cite evidence for his claims, but the most widely circulated copies of the memo removed his citations.
- Aunche 9y agoI mean the citations weren't particularly thorough, and he took some liberties with interpretation.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- Consultant32452 9y agoHis statements were within the mainstream interpretations of modern clinical psychology and evolutionary biology. That doesn't make them certain facts by any means, but it's important that we not misrepresent things here.
- bduerst 9y agoNot to mention cherry picking what to cite in order to support his arguments.
- leereeves 9y agoI agree Damore's sources were unconvincing, but I've searched for sources disputing one of his most controversial claims (that women are more "neurotic" - an unfortunately named Big Five personality trait - than men) and haven't found any. Do you know of any?