14 ms·

Someone with more info please correct me: But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they did

by rayvy 8y ago

Someone with more info please correct me: But from what I read it sounds as if Google had to pay him the $90MM+, else be sued by him right? Because if they didn't pay him, he'd sue, then they [Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). So it seems as if Google's hands were tied legally on this.

bdcravens 8y ago
Most issues of social or civil justice typically have at least one conflict of interest. However, individuals are burned at the proverbial stake daily for far less than coercion, and the idea that Google would sweep this under the rug instead of fighting the fight is sickening to some.
- manfredo 8y ago
  But this wasn't swept under the rug. The alleged harasser was fired. Google took steps to remove the alleged harasser. Keeping the details private is standard practice and is usually something all the parties involved want. From what I'm reading, Google paid Rubin the amount he was entitled to in his contract. Some people point out that Google could have paid him next to nothing for firing him with cause - but Rubin could have sued Google, and almost certainly would have made the claim that the harassment allegations we're Google's way of trying to avoid paying him - and from what I read, Google probably wanted to avoid this, because it would inevitably involve the details of the alleged assault going public. I assume that the alleged victim doesn't want this, we don't have good reports of how much proof there is for these allegations, and there's also the possibility of Google losing the suit and looking like they're the ones in the wrong.
  - filmgirlcw 8y ago
    But it was swept under the rug. He got a splashy send-off and a thanks for his service. At the very least, that seems over the top. The reasons for his ouster weren't disclosed. I would be curious if Essential's investors (Redpoint, Altimeter, Amazon Alexa Fund) were aware of why Rubin left Google. Moreover, this is a pattern at Google. Amit Singhal[1] was fired (also with a send-off and goodbye party and settled outstanding grants) after accusations of harassment were found credible. He then landed as SVP of engineering at Uber, where he was forced to resign because he hadn't disclosed the prior HR complaint at Google. Now, obviously, the lack of disclosure is what did him in -- but why did Google not tell Uber that he was asked to leave during his background check? Yes, Rubin likely would have sued. Yes, it likely would have been messy and very public. No, I do not believe for a second that Google settled to "protect" the victim; Google's settlement with the the alleged victim was certainly less than $90m. Google settled b/c in 2014, the drama of fighting with someone like Rubin seemed more risky than just paying him off -- even with the risk that the reasons why might become public later. The climate of 2018 makes me believe that was a fundamental mistake and the company should have fought back to not pay money that a labor attorney could argue was not owed. [1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google-uber https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-googl...
    - manfredo 8y ago
      To sweep something under the rug means to ignore it and not deal with it. Google did deal with it, so it's incorrect to say that the accusation was swept under the rug. Sure, you may be displeased at how they handled it but there's no denial of the fact that they did take the accusations seriously and fired a high level exec. You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the company that used an allegation of harassment to try and cheat an exec out of his outstanding compensation would be atrocious for the company's image - and not to mention attach huge negative stigma around people who come forward with harassment campaigns against powerful people. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not the person or group who is at stake.
      - jakelazaroff 8y ago
        GP isn't ignoring the optics of the situation, they're just asserting that being perceived as a company that paid a sexual predator almost one hundred million dollars to avoid dealing with a sexual assault claim is worse than the scenario you described.
        manfredo 8y ago
        I dispute that. Google going to trial, exposing the victim to the public eye, and risking the possibility that the public remembers this episode as an example of harassment claims being weaponized by corporations is a worse scenario. I think people are really underestimating the last one of those. Would the metoo movent have even spread to tech if an there existed a public (or at least, what the public percieves to be) instance of a company using allegations of harassment to cheat employees out of compensation? Would it have even existed at all?
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible; I'm genuinely confused as to your position here. Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault?
azhenley 8y ago
The cost of fighting it in court may be far less than the cost of the public/employee backlash.
- olliej 8y ago
  The problem here is the "it costs more to do the right thing" is a bad argument. If you have a serial harasser, who is just paid off to leave quietly, then you just ensure that he gets to go off and do the same thing again. And be richer. How about instead of giving him $90 million, you give that to his victims in exchange for them not making claims against him? The result is approximately the same, but at least you're giving money to the victim rather than the criminal.
  - azhenley 8y ago
    I completely agree. My comment was actually saying I think it is often cheaper to do the right thing (even if it means spending more money initially).
    - olliej 8y ago
      Ah! To verify my reading (oh text communication :D) Companies often say "court is more expensive than Y" because that's a directly measurable thing, and simply ignore the actual long term costs. Much like elected officials :-O [edit: wtf typing :D)
  - tw04 8y ago
    >If you have a serial harasser Except Rubin was never accused of being a serial harasser that I've seen. He was terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      He was not "terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate". From the article: > Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.
tw04 8y ago
Furthermore, correct me if I misread, but what he did wrong was have consensual sexual relations with a subordinate, right? And then he was fired for it (which he should be). And they protected him how? Paying him the severance package he was owed? I'm not following if that's all correct.
- olliej 8y ago
  No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gender (woman who have to sleep with him to get equal treatment, or super devil advocate here, against men unable to "sleep to the top"). The reason companies have clear rules against this - which should be super easy to enforce - is because if you are in a position of power over someone, even if it was a hypothetical case of not abusing power, the subordinate can't tell so may feel coerced. If your underling feels coerced, they are. That it was unintentional is not relevant. Note, this is distinct from consent, which may or may not apply. Certainly if it's consent related the company should be forwarding to police. In addition to that it seems like there is a large body of evidence of what is at minimum inappropriate behaviour of any employee, let alone the management and executive tiers. Any of which should have been firable.
  - asianthrowaway 8y ago
    The burning man guy is another guy (who still works at Google afaik). This Rubin guy was no doubt a creep. From the NYT article: "The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Yikes!
    - claydavisss 8y ago
      I'm amazed all the women at Essential haven't bolted....I mean...gross....
jakelazaroff 8y ago
From the original NY Times article [1]: > Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. [...] > When Google fires lower-level employees, it typically marches them out immediately and pays little, if any, severance. But for senior executives, Google weighs other factors, said former executives. A wrongful termination lawsuit could mean unwanted media attention for Google and the victims of a misconduct case, with a loss resulting in significant damages. It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit or bad press. What they definitely didn't have to do was this: > Afterward, Google invested in Playground Global, a venture firm Mr. Rubin started six months after leaving the company. It's one thing to pay severance if you don't think you can win an unlawful termination lawsuit, but it's another entirely to invest in that person's next venture after you're absolved of any legal obligation to them. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  Precisely. Quoting myself from upthread >My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In 2014, that may have seemed like the "safe" bet. In 2018, it's coming back to bite Alphabet in the ass.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit The possibility of the lawsuit indicates there was at least a plausible argument for a legal requirement.
olliej 8y ago
It's not "malicious", its the assumption that he gets to act like that. What they need to do is prove that he behaved in a way that was inappropriate. It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less.
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  Exactly. Unfortunately, this is also all too common. But that doesn't make it OK and that doesn't mean that when it happens in our backyard (and not in Hollywood or finance or [insert industry here]), we should stand back and not do anything about it or speak up that it's not alright.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. “Credible” is a far cry from being likely to meet the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard, it literally is just “not implausible”. > The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less. Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change.
  - akiselev 8y ago
    Preponderance of the evidence would be the standard if Rubin sued Google for wrongful termination, not the standard for evaluating allegations against executives - the latter is entirely up to Google. Rubin would have to convince the jury that he was terminated wrongfully against Google's argument that a credible allegation against senior management is enough to terminate with cause. > Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change. GP never suggested that Google hand out jail sentences, just that they shouldn't be giving $90 million severance to Rubin when many employees who got fired for a lot less egregious behavior got nothing.
abalone 8y ago
Even if they were legally obligated to pay him, they were not obligated to protect him. They had nice parting words for him and invested in his subsequent venture. They could have just kept their mouths shut and cut off all contact. They didn't.
filmgirlcw 8y ago
As bdcravens says, what upsets some is that THIS executive and THIS situation was deemed worthy of sweeping under the rug, paying out the $90m and giving a hero's send-off of sorts (yes, anyone with eyes knew Andy was forced out, but there wasn't any chatter that I was aware of that he was forced out for personnel reasons. Instead, it was assumed to be a power struggle that he lost.), when many others are often let-go for far less compelling reasons (there might not be an HR report that finds fault), without their options fully vested. It isn't clear if Rubin's actions reached a level that would breach his contracts morality clause (assuming one existed -- and one almost always exists), which would allow them to fire him with cause -- but the fact that an internal investigation found that he acted inappropriately, would at least indicate there was a legal way to fire Rubin without paying him $90m. (I am not a lawyer, FWIW.) My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. It's the sort of move that is incredibly common in other parts of business (Hollywood and the media business in general), but that doesn't make it OK. And it is particularly offensive when the industry in which it takes place -- and the company it is taking place at -- have a history of trying to be "better" than the status quo.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  > In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. And then, not three months later, investing substantially in his next venture...
jdavis703 8y ago
At my company the employment contract limits the company's liability if you're fired for harassment (this was standard at past places too). Executives probably have different contracts than mere rank-and-file employees though, in which case I hope we get a law that forbids companies from paying out "golden parachutes" if they conduct an investigation and find proof of sexual misconduct.
- csdreamer7 8y ago
  Yikes... now is a good time to look for a new job.
nostrademons 8y ago
A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results. The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again, so that our interests as current employees who don't want to work in an environment rife in sexual harassment aren't discounted." The whole point is to make the company uncomfortable so that they realize they're caught between a rock and a hard place, and the next time an executive's caught with his dick in somebody's face the company's like "Well, we really wish we could work out an amiable settlement with you for your past service, but you remember the protests when this happened with Andy Rubin? Our hands are tied here - the whole company almost fell apart, and if we avoid your lawsuit we'll just end up with a bigger one from them." They aren't really wrong in this - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and always has, and now a much larger portion of the population is willing to squeak. The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us. I wonder if much of the appeal of the crypto world (where whole organizations are disintermediated in favor of smart contracts) is because people are realizing that an organization is nothing but a target for angry people, and so by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a target on your face.
- rdl 8y ago
  This is like the business version of Assassination Politics leading to all identifiable people being utterly milquetoast and all activity happening under crypto-secure nyms. Someone will win an Econ Nobel for this.
- crwalker 8y ago
  Yes. Crypto is a compelling simulacrum of classical liberalism (free individuals engaging in trade and limited governments using precise laws to protect the commons). This time we are trusting machines and mathematics to preserve individual rights rather than culture.
bedhead 8y ago
They could've claimed he broke his employment contract (I'm assuming he had a contract - he almost certainly did) which presumably had some "bad boy" clause in it, thus firing him for cause and not paying him anything. But that is messy, and costly, and the outcome is uncertain, and while Rubin sounds like a scumbag here, this also wasn't the most egregious behavior out there. Bottom line, Google was screwed the moment they signed that employment contract...those things are written incredibly favorably for the employee.
trhway 8y ago
>[Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). my understanding (IANAL) is that sexual coercion is illegal under CA labor laws. And it would definitely be a clear violation of a policy in any corp i've worked at and i suppose Google has a similar policy as well.

by rayvy 8y ago

bdcravens 8y ago

Most issues of social or civil justice typically have at least one conflict of interest. However, individuals are burned at the proverbial stake daily for far less than coercion, and the idea that Google would sweep this under the rug instead of fighting the fight is sickening to some.

manfredo 8y ago
But this wasn't swept under the rug. The alleged harasser was fired. Google took steps to remove the alleged harasser. Keeping the details private is standard practice and is usually something all the parties involved want. From what I'm reading, Google paid Rubin the amount he was entitled to in his contract. Some people point out that Google could have paid him next to nothing for firing him with cause - but Rubin could have sued Google, and almost certainly would have made the claim that the harassment allegations we're Google's way of trying to avoid paying him - and from what I read, Google probably wanted to avoid this, because it would inevitably involve the details of the alleged assault going public. I assume that the alleged victim doesn't want this, we don't have good reports of how much proof there is for these allegations, and there's also the possibility of Google losing the suit and looking like they're the ones in the wrong.
- filmgirlcw 8y ago
  But it was swept under the rug. He got a splashy send-off and a thanks for his service. At the very least, that seems over the top. The reasons for his ouster weren't disclosed. I would be curious if Essential's investors (Redpoint, Altimeter, Amazon Alexa Fund) were aware of why Rubin left Google. Moreover, this is a pattern at Google. Amit Singhal[1] was fired (also with a send-off and goodbye party and settled outstanding grants) after accusations of harassment were found credible. He then landed as SVP of engineering at Uber, where he was forced to resign because he hadn't disclosed the prior HR complaint at Google. Now, obviously, the lack of disclosure is what did him in -- but why did Google not tell Uber that he was asked to leave during his background check? Yes, Rubin likely would have sued. Yes, it likely would have been messy and very public. No, I do not believe for a second that Google settled to "protect" the victim; Google's settlement with the the alleged victim was certainly less than $90m. Google settled b/c in 2014, the drama of fighting with someone like Rubin seemed more risky than just paying him off -- even with the risk that the reasons why might become public later. The climate of 2018 makes me believe that was a fundamental mistake and the company should have fought back to not pay money that a labor attorney could argue was not owed. [1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-google-uber https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-googl...
  - manfredo 8y ago
    To sweep something under the rug means to ignore it and not deal with it. Google did deal with it, so it's incorrect to say that the accusation was swept under the rug. Sure, you may be displeased at how they handled it but there's no denial of the fact that they did take the accusations seriously and fired a high level exec. You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the company that used an allegation of harassment to try and cheat an exec out of his outstanding compensation would be atrocious for the company's image - and not to mention attach huge negative stigma around people who come forward with harassment campaigns against powerful people. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not the person or group who is at stake.
    - jakelazaroff 8y ago
      GP isn't ignoring the optics of the situation, they're just asserting that being perceived as a company that paid a sexual predator almost one hundred million dollars to avoid dealing with a sexual assault claim is worse than the scenario you described.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        I dispute that. Google going to trial, exposing the victim to the public eye, and risking the possibility that the public remembers this episode as an example of harassment claims being weaponized by corporations is a worse scenario. I think people are really underestimating the last one of those. Would the metoo movent have even spread to tech if an there existed a public (or at least, what the public percieves to be) instance of a company using allegations of harassment to cheat employees out of compensation? Would it have even existed at all?
        jakelazaroff 8y ago
        You keep saying "cheat", but Google found the allegations credible; I'm genuinely confused as to your position here. Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault?

azhenley 8y ago

The cost of fighting it in court may be far less than the cost of the public/employee backlash.

olliej 8y ago
The problem here is the "it costs more to do the right thing" is a bad argument. If you have a serial harasser, who is just paid off to leave quietly, then you just ensure that he gets to go off and do the same thing again. And be richer. How about instead of giving him $90 million, you give that to his victims in exchange for them not making claims against him? The result is approximately the same, but at least you're giving money to the victim rather than the criminal.
- azhenley 8y ago
  I completely agree. My comment was actually saying I think it is often cheaper to do the right thing (even if it means spending more money initially).
  - olliej 8y ago
    Ah! To verify my reading (oh text communication :D) Companies often say "court is more expensive than Y" because that's a directly measurable thing, and simply ignore the actual long term costs. Much like elected officials :-O [edit: wtf typing :D)
- tw04 8y ago
  >If you have a serial harasser Except Rubin was never accused of being a serial harasser that I've seen. He was terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate.
  - jakelazaroff 8y ago
    He was not "terminated for having sexual relations with a subordinate". From the article: > Google gave Rubin a reported $90 million exit package in 2014, following an investigation into an allegation that he had coerced another employee to perform oral sex on him. That investigation reportedly found that allegation to be credible.

tw04 8y ago

Furthermore, correct me if I misread, but what he did wrong was have consensual sexual relations with a subordinate, right? And then he was fired for it (which he should be). And they protected him how? Paying him the severance package he was owed? I'm not following if that's all correct.

olliej 8y ago
No, he coerced them into it - if you have a position of power, and you say "have sex with me", effectively in exchange for your treatment/employment in the company - I can't recall if Rubin was the burning man "sex or no job" guy, or that was another - that is sex discrimination and/or harassment. I doubt Rubin would have had the same behaviour with male subordinates, so that's a difference in treatment based on gender (woman who have to sleep with him to get equal treatment, or super devil advocate here, against men unable to "sleep to the top"). The reason companies have clear rules against this - which should be super easy to enforce - is because if you are in a position of power over someone, even if it was a hypothetical case of not abusing power, the subordinate can't tell so may feel coerced. If your underling feels coerced, they are. That it was unintentional is not relevant. Note, this is distinct from consent, which may or may not apply. Certainly if it's consent related the company should be forwarding to police. In addition to that it seems like there is a large body of evidence of what is at minimum inappropriate behaviour of any employee, let alone the management and executive tiers. Any of which should have been firable.
- asianthrowaway 8y ago
  The burning man guy is another guy (who still works at Google afaik). This Rubin guy was no doubt a creep. From the NYT article: "The suit included a screenshot of an August 2015 email Mr. Rubin sent to one woman. “You will be happy being taken care of,” he wrote. “Being owned is kinda like you are my property, and I can loan you to other people.”" Yikes!
  - claydavisss 8y ago
    I'm amazed all the women at Essential haven't bolted....I mean...gross....

jakelazaroff 8y ago

From the original NY Times article [1]: > Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. [...] > When Google fires lower-level employees, it typically marches them out immediately and pays little, if any, severance. But for senior executives, Google weighs other factors, said former executives. A wrongful termination lawsuit could mean unwanted media attention for Google and the victims of a misconduct case, with a loss resulting in significant damages. It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit or bad press. What they definitely didn't have to do was this: > Afterward, Google invested in Playground Global, a venture firm Mr. Rubin started six months after leaving the company. It's one thing to pay severance if you don't think you can win an unlawful termination lawsuit, but it's another entirely to invest in that person's next venture after you're absolved of any legal obligation to them. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...

filmgirlcw 8y ago
Precisely. Quoting myself from upthread >My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In 2014, that may have seemed like the "safe" bet. In 2018, it's coming back to bite Alphabet in the ass.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit The possibility of the lawsuit indicates there was at least a plausible argument for a legal requirement.

olliej 8y ago

It's not "malicious", its the assumption that he gets to act like that. What they need to do is prove that he behaved in a way that was inappropriate. It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less.

filmgirlcw 8y ago
Exactly. Unfortunately, this is also all too common. But that doesn't make it OK and that doesn't mean that when it happens in our backyard (and not in Hollywood or finance or [insert industry here]), we should stand back and not do anything about it or speak up that it's not alright.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> It sounds like there's plenty of evidence that he did - hell, they had enough evidence to record, in writing, that they found the claims against him credible. “Credible” is a far cry from being likely to meet the civil “preponderance of the evidence” standard, it literally is just “not implausible”. > The difference between him and the people that they did fire was his position. Which is entirely backwards - the penalties for criminal behaviour should be higher for people with more power, not less. Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change.
- akiselev 8y ago
  Preponderance of the evidence would be the standard if Rubin sued Google for wrongful termination, not the standard for evaluating allegations against executives - the latter is entirely up to Google. Rubin would have to convince the jury that he was terminated wrongfully against Google's argument that a credible allegation against senior management is enough to terminate with cause. > Google doesn't impose criminal punishment, and I don't think anyone wants that to change. GP never suggested that Google hand out jail sentences, just that they shouldn't be giving $90 million severance to Rubin when many employees who got fired for a lot less egregious behavior got nothing.

abalone 8y ago

Even if they were legally obligated to pay him, they were not obligated to protect him. They had nice parting words for him and invested in his subsequent venture. They could have just kept their mouths shut and cut off all contact. They didn't.

filmgirlcw 8y ago

As bdcravens says, what upsets some is that THIS executive and THIS situation was deemed worthy of sweeping under the rug, paying out the $90m and giving a hero's send-off of sorts (yes, anyone with eyes knew Andy was forced out, but there wasn't any chatter that I was aware of that he was forced out for personnel reasons. Instead, it was assumed to be a power struggle that he lost.), when many others are often let-go for far less compelling reasons (there might not be an HR report that finds fault), without their options fully vested. It isn't clear if Rubin's actions reached a level that would breach his contracts morality clause (assuming one existed -- and one almost always exists), which would allow them to fire him with cause -- but the fact that an internal investigation found that he acted inappropriately, would at least indicate there was a legal way to fire Rubin without paying him $90m. (I am not a lawyer, FWIW.) My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure. In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. It's the sort of move that is incredibly common in other parts of business (Hollywood and the media business in general), but that doesn't make it OK. And it is particularly offensive when the industry in which it takes place -- and the company it is taking place at -- have a history of trying to be "better" than the status quo.

FireBeyond 8y ago
> In retrospect, that was a bad call -- because in 2018, the optics of sweeping credible harassment allegations by a senior executive under the rug and then guiding them out the door with a $90m settlement is something that sickens and angers many individuals. And then, not three months later, investing substantially in his next venture...

jdavis703 8y ago

At my company the employment contract limits the company's liability if you're fired for harassment (this was standard at past places too). Executives probably have different contracts than mere rank-and-file employees though, in which case I hope we get a law that forbids companies from paying out "golden parachutes" if they conduct an investigation and find proof of sexual misconduct.

csdreamer7 8y ago
Yikes... now is a good time to look for a new job.

nostrademons 8y ago

A lot of the popular unrest facing both corporations & governments today is people learning that conflict gets results. The logic goes that "Well, Andy Rubin managed to exercise his threat to sue to get a $90M severance package, and he doesn't even work for the company anymore. We do work for the company, so we are going to exercise our power as employees to put pressure on the company to not do this again, so that our interests as current employees who don't want to work in an environment rife in sexual harassment aren't discounted." The whole point is to make the company uncomfortable so that they realize they're caught between a rock and a hard place, and the next time an executive's caught with his dick in somebody's face the company's like "Well, we really wish we could work out an amiable settlement with you for your past service, but you remember the protests when this happened with Andy Rubin? Our hands are tied here - the whole company almost fell apart, and if we avoid your lawsuit we'll just end up with a bigger one from them." They aren't really wrong in this - the squeaky wheel gets the grease and always has, and now a much larger portion of the population is willing to squeak. The end result probably looks like us burning most of the modern world to the ground, literally, but that's where game theory is taking us. I wonder if much of the appeal of the crypto world (where whole organizations are disintermediated in favor of smart contracts) is because people are realizing that an organization is nothing but a target for angry people, and so by getting rid of the organization and making any people behind it anonymous & fungible, you can continue to organize economic activity without painting a target on your face.

rdl 8y ago
This is like the business version of Assassination Politics leading to all identifiable people being utterly milquetoast and all activity happening under crypto-secure nyms. Someone will win an Econ Nobel for this.
crwalker 8y ago
Yes. Crypto is a compelling simulacrum of classical liberalism (free individuals engaging in trade and limited governments using precise laws to protect the commons). This time we are trusting machines and mathematics to preserve individual rights rather than culture.

bedhead 8y ago

They could've claimed he broke his employment contract (I'm assuming he had a contract - he almost certainly did) which presumably had some "bad boy" clause in it, thus firing him for cause and not paying him anything. But that is messy, and costly, and the outcome is uncertain, and while Rubin sounds like a scumbag here, this also wasn't the most egregious behavior out there. Bottom line, Google was screwed the moment they signed that employment contract...those things are written incredibly favorably for the employee.

trhway 8y ago

>[Google] would have to prove that he [Rubin] acted maliciously (or whatever), which would've been hard (if not impossible) to do, given that the accuser said they were coerced (not forced). my understanding (IANAL) is that sexual coercion is illegal under CA labor laws. And it would definitely be a clear violation of a policy in any corp i've worked at and i suppose Google has a similar policy as well.