4 ms·

Good comment, just a few quick points referring to your numbered items (note: not mine). 1. Contingency fee basis is common. 2. CA 1101&1102 protect employees

Good comment, just a few quick points referring to your numbered items (note: not mine). 1. Contingency fee basis is common. 2. CA 1101&1102 protect employees from political firing and coercion. Many are unaware of state law variation here. Check them out: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1102 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio... Good point on pseudonyms. The Federalist Papers are a famous example of practical pseudonymity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers#Authorship https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers#Author...

Reelin 8y ago
Ok, wow, those really don't seem to leave any room for "creative" interpretations. Thanks for the links! I'm impressed - all too often protections get watered down when being passed into law. I particularly like the inclusion of "or tending to control or direct" in CA 1101. That being said, my point 2 was that regardless of the strength of protections provided you still have to demonstrate intent (or for CA 1101 "tendency" I suppose) in court. No idea how high that bar is in CA, but regardless, depending on circumstances that really could be very challenging. I do have to wonder how employers are going to reconcile this with our increasingly connected, reactionary, and polarized culture going forward. Use of social media alone presumably qualifies as "engaging or participating in politics" at this point, so what happens if, for example, a CA employee starts publicly shitposting about a political topic, someone figures out where they work, and things escalate? Your case and Mr. Kaplan's would seem to be only the tip of the iceberg...
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  Kaplan won't be fired, I'm sure: connected friend of Zuck, at FB pre-IPO, VP of global policy. James Damore is a better case, and CA 1101 & 1102 are in fact cited in that amended lawsuit: https://www.dhillonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20180418-Damore-et-al.-v.-Google-FAC_Endorsed.pdf https://www.dhillonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/201804.... Contingency fee plus colorable claim often means settlement way before hearing or trial, with non-disclosure clause to keep secrets after. Hard to know how often this happens. Businesses generally strive to de-escalate whenever possible.
- BrendanEich 8y ago
  Quick note to agree that CA 1101 and 1102 are impressive. They date from 1937. They protect everyone, and were used in a well-known case "Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171110205448/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/05/does-california-law-protect-employee-speech-hostile-to-homosexuality-as-well-as-employee-speech-that-defends-homosexuality/?utm_term=.3aa9676a43d1 https://web.archive.org/web/20171110205448/https://www.washi...). They are exceptional as you note, in being relatively clearly written. Bring back the 1930s era legal standards!

Reelin 8y ago

Ok, wow, those really don't seem to leave any room for "creative" interpretations. Thanks for the links! I'm impressed - all too often protections get watered down when being passed into law. I particularly like the inclusion of "or tending to control or direct" in CA 1101. That being said, my point 2 was that regardless of the strength of protections provided you still have to demonstrate intent (or for CA 1101 "tendency" I suppose) in court. No idea how high that bar is in CA, but regardless, depending on circumstances that really could be very challenging. I do have to wonder how employers are going to reconcile this with our increasingly connected, reactionary, and polarized culture going forward. Use of social media alone presumably qualifies as "engaging or participating in politics" at this point, so what happens if, for example, a CA employee starts publicly shitposting about a political topic, someone figures out where they work, and things escalate? Your case and Mr. Kaplan's would seem to be only the tip of the iceberg...

BrendanEich 8y ago
Kaplan won't be fired, I'm sure: connected friend of Zuck, at FB pre-IPO, VP of global policy. James Damore is a better case, and CA 1101 & 1102 are in fact cited in that amended lawsuit: https://www.dhillonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/20180418-Damore-et-al.-v.-Google-FAC_Endorsed.pdf https://www.dhillonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/201804.... Contingency fee plus colorable claim often means settlement way before hearing or trial, with non-disclosure clause to keep secrets after. Hard to know how often this happens. Businesses generally strive to de-escalate whenever possible.
BrendanEich 8y ago
Quick note to agree that CA 1101 and 1102 are impressive. They date from 1937. They protect everyone, and were used in a well-known case "Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171110205448/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/05/05/does-california-law-protect-employee-speech-hostile-to-homosexuality-as-well-as-employee-speech-that-defends-homosexuality/?utm_term=.3aa9676a43d1 https://web.archive.org/web/20171110205448/https://www.washi...). They are exceptional as you note, in being relatively clearly written. Bring back the 1930s era legal standards!