4 ms·

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 p

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?

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?