4 ms·

Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything

by kerng 8y ago

Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. But what happened was that Google only said how awesome everything is and hence in fact protected and worse, basically endorsed, his behavior. I find it good that Google employees stand up here. I'm already wondering what will Google do about that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews? He got similar support and is still at Google as far as I understood.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. Probably not; mutual non-disparagement clauses are extremely common in executive contracts. Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million.
- gowld 8y ago
  Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?
  - Judgmentality 8y ago
    It depends on the contract, but based on one I recently saw for a very sizable startup (several billion raised) - yes. The document I saw specifically stated you cannot say anything, written or otherwise, that speaks negatively of the company regardless of validity.
  - skissane 8y ago
    Non-disparagement clauses are usually worded in such a way to prohibit making disparaging statements even if the statements are true. The disparagement is based in the fact that it will damage the party's reputation, not on whether it is true or substantiated or not. (It all depends on the wording of the contract of course, and also how the courts are likely to interpret or enforce it, which is why professional legal advice is so essential in these matters.) For some examples of how non-disparagement clauses are commonly worded: https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-disparagement#examples https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-dispara...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion? If the facts can reasonably be expected to damage the reputation of the other party to the agreement, yes, generally (subject to any specific exception in the agreement, such as the common one for accurate testimony in court proceedings when legally mandated.)
  - mlindner 8y ago
    I would say that depends on if they are indeed facts.
- thaumaturgy 8y ago
  And you think the mutual non-disparagement clause required Google to invest in Playground Global? > Rubin has also pulled together a group of high-rolling financiers; the endeavor is supported by a $300 million venture capital fund, whose investors include Google, HP, Foxconn, Redpoint Ventures, and Tencent, the Chinese Internet-services company. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/android-inventor-andy-rubin-playground-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/android-inventor-andy-rubin-pl...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > And you think the mutual non-disparagement clause required Google to invest in Playground Global? Not directly. It is a reason that he details of the separation would be tightly held, and thus may not have known to those in whatever of Google's investment subsidiaries was making the decision on that investment.
    - geofft 8y ago
      It would be surprising to me if a middle manager approved investing in a former highly visible executive's company without talking to folks involved with the separation agreement, precisely because there might be unknown legal details. The appropriate part of Google could have said "We cannot invest in this company because we have confidentially found reason to suspect future reputational risk, and you can't even tell him that's why you're not investing" or something.
- beatgammit 8y ago
  My NDA with a client of mine works the same way, they're very common. The question is whether it's enforceable. For my NDA it doesn't matter because I don't want to go to court, but for this situation it's much more likely to go there and probably end up with an even larger settlement.
- jacquesm 8y ago
  > Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million. Then maybe that's what they should have done. Not everything about running a company is about not taking risks that you can afford. Sometimes you just make a stand because you feel something is important enough to warrant the risk, even when you feel that calculus of the risk works out against you.
- HillaryBriss 8y ago
  speaking of $90 million, is there any reporting anywhere on the compensation (if any) the victim of the coerced sexual act has received? is this known?
sumedh 8y ago
> that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews Can you post some more details, a simple google search does not return anything meaningful.
- gowld 8y ago
  It's an incorrect paraphrase of a part of the big article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... > During the job interview, she said he told her that he and his wife were “polyamorous,”. > She said he invited her to Burning Man, an annual festival in the Nevada desert, the following week. > she thought it was an opportunity to talk to Mr. DeVaul about the job. She said she brought conservative clothes suitable for a professional meeting. > At Mr. DeVaul’s encampment, Ms. Simpson said, he asked her to remove her shirt and offered a back rub.
jeffdavis 8y ago
What was his actual (not "alleged") behavior? If you don't know, maybe google doesn't know either, in which case why would they "call it out"?
- kerng 8y ago
  Was in the news, an internal Google investigation found it to be credible that Rubin coerced an employee to perform oral sex on him.
  - jeffdavis 8y ago
    The thing about "credible" is that it has two sides. Was his denial also credible? We need a shared public consensus around the truth about particular situations, such as whether someone has done something bad or not. One way to do that is with a trial, that has long-established traditions for admissible evidence and due process. And it has a definite and timely conclusion. Is this shared public consensus always right? No, and it doesn't have to be. We just have to have a process that everyone has enough faith in. Do the particular parties always need to agree with that public consensus? No, they and their friends, family, etc. may still proclaim the innocence of a convict and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the public is called to be a huge jury on all kinds of issues; informed by whatever evidence makes it in the news (with no standards of admission). That leads to different people coming to different judgements, and those judgements build up into different sets of facts. There's a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". That is a noble idea: that we can share facts and disagree, and that allows us to ultimately compromise and work together. But it depends on a shared consensus of what the facts are. For better or worse (I believe better), when evidence is inconclusive, the shared public consensus is to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. One-sided "credibility" is not conclusive and doesn't belong in the set of shared public facts.
    - kerng 8y ago
      The investigation at Google, considering both side came to that conclusion. Two other execs provided input also the NYT article last week mentioned. Page believed it and showed Rubin the door.

by kerng 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Google could have given him the 90 million but at the same time still call out his behavior. Probably not; mutual non-disparagement clauses are extremely common in executive contracts. Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million.

gowld 8y ago
Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion?
- Judgmentality 8y ago
  It depends on the contract, but based on one I recently saw for a very sizable startup (several billion raised) - yes. The document I saw specifically stated you cannot say anything, written or otherwise, that speaks negatively of the company regardless of validity.
- skissane 8y ago
  Non-disparagement clauses are usually worded in such a way to prohibit making disparaging statements even if the statements are true. The disparagement is based in the fact that it will damage the party's reputation, not on whether it is true or substantiated or not. (It all depends on the wording of the contract of course, and also how the courts are likely to interpret or enforce it, which is why professional legal advice is so essential in these matters.) For some examples of how non-disparagement clauses are commonly worded: https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-disparagement#examples https://www.contractstandards.com/public/clauses/non-dispara...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Is it disparagement to report facts without attaching an opinion? If the facts can reasonably be expected to damage the reputation of the other party to the agreement, yes, generally (subject to any specific exception in the agreement, such as the common one for accurate testimony in court proceedings when legally mandated.)
- mlindner 8y ago
  I would say that depends on if they are indeed facts.
thaumaturgy 8y ago
And you think the mutual non-disparagement clause required Google to invest in Playground Global? > Rubin has also pulled together a group of high-rolling financiers; the endeavor is supported by a $300 million venture capital fund, whose investors include Google, HP, Foxconn, Redpoint Ventures, and Tencent, the Chinese Internet-services company. https://www.wired.com/2016/02/android-inventor-andy-rubin-playground-artificial-intelligence/ https://www.wired.com/2016/02/android-inventor-andy-rubin-pl...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > And you think the mutual non-disparagement clause required Google to invest in Playground Global? Not directly. It is a reason that he details of the separation would be tightly held, and thus may not have known to those in whatever of Google's investment subsidiaries was making the decision on that investment.
  - geofft 8y ago
    It would be surprising to me if a middle manager approved investing in a former highly visible executive's company without talking to folks involved with the separation agreement, precisely because there might be unknown legal details. The appropriate part of Google could have said "We cannot invest in this company because we have confidentially found reason to suspect future reputational risk, and you can't even tell him that's why you're not investing" or something.
beatgammit 8y ago
My NDA with a client of mine works the same way, they're very common. The question is whether it's enforceable. For my NDA it doesn't matter because I don't want to go to court, but for this situation it's much more likely to go there and probably end up with an even larger settlement.
jacquesm 8y ago
> Breaking that would have been the same, in terms of kind of litigation risk, as not paying the $90 million. Then maybe that's what they should have done. Not everything about running a company is about not taking risks that you can afford. Sometimes you just make a stand because you feel something is important enough to warrant the risk, even when you feel that calculus of the risk works out against you.
HillaryBriss 8y ago
speaking of $90 million, is there any reporting anywhere on the compensation (if any) the victim of the coerced sexual act has received? is this known?

sumedh 8y ago

> that other guy who gives back rubs in interviews Can you post some more details, a simple google search does not return anything meaningful.

gowld 8y ago
It's an incorrect paraphrase of a part of the big article: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... > During the job interview, she said he told her that he and his wife were “polyamorous,”. > She said he invited her to Burning Man, an annual festival in the Nevada desert, the following week. > she thought it was an opportunity to talk to Mr. DeVaul about the job. She said she brought conservative clothes suitable for a professional meeting. > At Mr. DeVaul’s encampment, Ms. Simpson said, he asked her to remove her shirt and offered a back rub.

jeffdavis 8y ago

What was his actual (not "alleged") behavior? If you don't know, maybe google doesn't know either, in which case why would they "call it out"?

kerng 8y ago
Was in the news, an internal Google investigation found it to be credible that Rubin coerced an employee to perform oral sex on him.
- jeffdavis 8y ago
  The thing about "credible" is that it has two sides. Was his denial also credible? We need a shared public consensus around the truth about particular situations, such as whether someone has done something bad or not. One way to do that is with a trial, that has long-established traditions for admissible evidence and due process. And it has a definite and timely conclusion. Is this shared public consensus always right? No, and it doesn't have to be. We just have to have a process that everyone has enough faith in. Do the particular parties always need to agree with that public consensus? No, they and their friends, family, etc. may still proclaim the innocence of a convict and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is when the public is called to be a huge jury on all kinds of issues; informed by whatever evidence makes it in the news (with no standards of admission). That leads to different people coming to different judgements, and those judgements build up into different sets of facts. There's a saying "you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts". That is a noble idea: that we can share facts and disagree, and that allows us to ultimately compromise and work together. But it depends on a shared consensus of what the facts are. For better or worse (I believe better), when evidence is inconclusive, the shared public consensus is to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused. One-sided "credibility" is not conclusive and doesn't belong in the set of shared public facts.
  - kerng 8y ago
    The investigation at Google, considering both side came to that conclusion. Two other execs provided input also the NYT article last week mentioned. Page believed it and showed Rubin the door.