yeah, the discussion keeps neglecting this point. They fired him for doing what they asked. With respect to "at will employment", he didn't do it the way they w

yeah, the discussion keeps neglecting this point. They fired him for doing what they asked. With respect to "at will employment", he didn't do it the way they wanted. What a funhouse. This action points out there is a set of rules which override what the employer tells you are the working conditions. The employer can reference those rules retrospectively to justify why your firing was not unlawful under the NRLA. I feel like this is beneficial to Damore's case though, because it shows that he can't seek relief from this catch-22 situation under the NRLA, and it's truly about the difference between what Google promised and what actually happened. It seems like this misrepresentation was deliberate.