21 ms·

Google X Executive Accused of Sexual Harassment Still Works There, Employees Say

92 points by smacktoward 8y ago

chadbennett 8y ago
Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11) Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- cagenut 8y ago
  maybe read your own source? https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/read-article-11.html https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea... its got nothing to do with your employment. unless you're assuming a right to a job in your argument.
  - Hei1Fuya 8y ago
    As long as we don't have UBI there's a need for a job to feed yourself.
    - adventured 8y ago
      Every nice welfare state has a lot of unemployed people. France has a permanent unemployed class, with perpetually high unemployment as a result of their labor laws and generous welfare state. Those people are not starving to death. Clearly UBI is in fact not necessary at all, so say the best countries in the world, from Denmark to Canada.
      - ambicapter 8y ago
        Are you saying that non-welfare states never have a permanent unemployed class? Or (non-exclusive or) that they have fewer unemployed, on average?
      - toweringgoat 8y ago
        Germany? Switzerland? Both are welfare states (even if not as extreme as some places), and have low unemployment.
        Hei1Fuya 8y ago
        German unemployment benefits are conditional on showing evidence that you're seeking jobs. So it's still founded on the assumption that everyone able should be working.
  - mike22223333 8y ago
    So you are going to justify it like that? These days liberals are falsely using the word liberal. A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what. Not what your emotions say.
    - danharaj 8y ago
      Where did you get that idea?
    - happytoexplain 8y ago
      My interpretation is the opposite - a lot of events lately provoke critical arguments that use the objective verbiage of legality and human rights to frame emotional, subjective opinions. E.g. the line between a private platform reasonably removing a user or something a user posted for ToS violation, and an attack on free speech. Or the line between reasonably punishing an employee who has violated workplace behavior policies, and an attack on innocence until proven guilty. I would argue that, in this domain of examples, liberals explicitly favor reason and prudence, not extremity toward one side or the other (though there may certainly be cases where there is a general bias toward one side of the line or the other that arguably fails that ideology).
    - munchbunny 8y ago
      A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what. That's so wrong it's not even relevant. It's like if you looked up "dog" in the dictionary and the definition was "a leafy plant." Are you sure you didn't mean a "literal"?
    - UncleMeat 8y ago
      Good to know that these classical liberals would have supported slavery, denying voting rights to women, and jim crow. That's not really a system that I'd like to follow.
- deanCommie 8y ago
  It still is - in the judicial system. There has never been and never will be such a presumption in private enterprise. We can fix it if you want, but you won't like the amount of Government control over industry that would require. Also, I realize "unverified accusation" is a commonly used distracting turn of phrase, but that hardly seems appropriate here: > ...an official at X told her, per the Times, that “her account was ‘more likely than not’ true and that ‘appropriate action’ was taken.” Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.” Sounds like verified, and admitted by the guilty party.
  - all2 8y ago
    I am very curious about how people who do things like these remain employed. Is there anyone who has been on the back-end of one of these decisions? What's the motivation for keeping a predator around?
    - empath75 8y ago
      If the predator makes them more money than it costs to pay off the victims.
      - gowld 8y ago
        Which victims are paid off? The cost is in lost/demoralized employees who would otherwise do valuable work, and in externalized harm to people outside the company.
        creep 8y ago
        >The cost is in lost/demoralized employees who would otherwise do valuable work No, stop, that's hardly a cost worth paying attention to for a large company. An exec is worth much more than almost anyone of lower rank. That's the problem, though. There is no way you can appeal to a large company in terms of the cost of lost employees who are victims of assault by higher-ups. The media storm is what gets them, it's the bad publicity they fear-- in my opinion that is the only way to get anything "done" in terms of assault cases like this. At the same time, when we rely on bad publicity to force action, we risk ruining the lives of innocent people. Men and women in powerful positions are often targeted with these sorts of accusations for the sole purpose of getting them out of the way. I have no proposed solution but appealing in the way you have is not it. It just does not make sense.
- ashelmire 8y ago
  People have forgotten that we enshrined that as a legal right because we determined it was best for society (or, more likely, never thought about it). It's not just a legal principle; it's a principle of just society. When we ignore it in the corporate world or other aspects of private life, we're saying that we think mob justice and presumption of guilt produces a better world (or a better corporation, etc). Of course, even in our legal system, all it takes is an accusation. How many people are currently serving times for crimes they didn't commit? I'd bet the answer is disturbing high, especially when the level of certainty is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do so many convicted of murder or other crimes later get proven innocent? If someone didn't commit a crime... you'd think there was quite a reasonable doubt.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    Leaving aside that the person in question here has admitted fault, so there's no question of guilt here... I often marvel that some people seem willing to completely ignore evidence that doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction. Any information, whether an admission of guilt, an accusation, multiple accusations, direct observation, observation of borderline or boundary-pushing behavior, or anythings else, provides some amount of evidence. Start with some prior probability of someone engaging in bad behavior (of any type, this isn't specific to harassment), in the absence of any information. Update that probability based on what evidence you have. You now have some estimated probability of someone engaging in that bad behavior. There's a threshold ("beyond a reasonable doubt", say 99%) where you'd use it to convict someone of a crime, depriving them of personal liberty to protect others and theoretically to attempt to reform them. There's a lower threshold (50%, "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities") where you'd use in a civil case, such as a lawsuit. There's a still lower threshold used for "probable cause", enough to get a warrant to investigate. There's a still lower threshold for "reasonable suspicion". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st... for a wide variety of legal standards other than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the US legal system already applies, and some of the circumstances in which they apply. So, continuing the same premise: there's a threshold (most definitely not 99%) where you'd decide not to put someone in a position of power that they seem likely to abuse. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to use a quote from someone to endorse a press release. There's a threshold where you'd refuse to employ someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone attend a conference where they might harm others or make others unwelcome. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone babysit your kids. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to date someone, or be friends with someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide to make sure you're never alone with someone. I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?
- swang 8y ago
  didn't you just condemn the accuser yourself by assuming she is lying without a jury of her peers to reach a verdict?! /s what you are advocating for here is a nanny state where every time there is an indiscretion a person is innocent until the full power of an international court comes in to deem a person guilty. you don't like the way society is going with this, yet your argument is that we need a trial to convict something in the public opinion. instead of advocating for one extreme to fight another extreme why not just use your own reasoning to determine which person you believe. google found the accusation credible, yet did nothing for the _victim_ other than tell them to keep quiet. is that also justice to you? and you think google actually wants some kind of trial on this? if they did they would be referring these matters to the local authorities. but instead it's just covered up, it's been "handled" don't worry though since it seems like no one actually gets punished for this kinda stuff other than a public shaming.
  - eberkund 8y ago
    What would you suggest? Asking a woman to take off her shirt for a massage or hitting on her during an interview; while creepy, is not illegal so there would be no reason to bring this matter into a courtroom.
    - swang 8y ago
      That is my whole point. How do you convict this? Spitting in general in the US is not illegal. Should you spit inside of a store? No and you’ll probably be asked to leave. When the owner says that dude is an asshole who spat in my store do you respond, “hold up where is his jury of peers?” Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer. The bigger issue is do you want to work under someone who does that? Either that person has no understanding of societal cues or they do and are asserting their power to take advantage of someone.
      - munchbunny 8y ago
        How do you convict this? I assume you've had to take sexual harassment training before? It's usually explained there. In the United States, the EEOC files lawsuits on behalf of the victims. Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer Yup, there is, and it comes from the EEOC suing you.
- dawhizkid 8y ago
  This is about an HR decision of a private company, not the US judicial system we're talking about.
- ur-whale 8y ago
  >Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? In most modern media, certainly not. And on Slate, it's usually the opposite (guilty until proven innocent), especially if the subject happens to be in one of the supposedly dominant classes (white|male|rich|anglo-saxon|straight, etc...)
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11) Only for penal offenses (same source [0].) Torts are not penal offenses, and workplace discipline that doesn't involve government action is even farther from a penal offense. > Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination? An accusation, even unverified, is not required for termination. “At-will employment” means pretty much what the name says. Outside of special cases (tenured and/or civil service status, special employment cobtracts) a job is a discretionary immediately revocable relationship, not a property interest secured by right. [0] https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/read-article-11.html https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea...
  - imh 8y ago
    I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment." Isn't that exactly what termination would be? If you terminate someone for a thing, I'd say that fits the bill as punishment for the thing.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment." You seem to have looked up “penal” alone in a general-use dictionary, rather than the legal term “penal offense” in a law dictionary. Unsurprisingly, the treaty, a document of international law, uses a legal term of art in (one of) it's legal sense(s). The term generally means “an offense punishable by law”, but is more specifically construed in a couple different senses, narrowly as synonymous with criminal offenses, but sometimes more broadly incorporating also offenses which are not criminal but include an exemplary / punitive sanction as well as (and particularly not tied to) any compensatory one. Termination of employment is not a sanction (punitive or otherwise) by law. (Well, in the case under discussion; it can be a legal sanction, e.g., under military law.)
    - eesmith 8y ago
      The linked-to text from the UDHR starts "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." If your choice of definition were correct, that would mean that any firing which is part of a punishment would have to go through the court system first. Since that isn't the case, that means your choice of definition is not correct. The penal code is "a code of laws concerning crimes and offenses and their punishment" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penal%20code https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penal%20code . A penal offense is something which is counter to the penal code.
- lucian-g 8y ago
  > Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination? You're probably commenting the title (which says he was just accused) and not the article. DeVaul admitted the events took place and apologized. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... > In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.
- munchbunny 8y ago
  What's your bar for "verified"?
Bucephalus355 8y ago
I had dinner with a friend last week who mentioned, almost in passing, that he had been reported to HR at Google. Was shocking, since I had worked with him at another company for a decade, and he had been very kind and compassionate, almost to a fault. He is a gay white male, but also a Christian (can’t remember which denomination or whatever). He had assumed it was over something religious he had said, HR did not tell him and spoke (understandably) in pretty general / vague terms. This person was weirdly resigned to their fate. They are a contractor, so maybe they’re scared of being let go, but the vibe I got from him was just “that’s how it is these days and I have to accept it”. I guess what creeped me out was how he never heard what the accusation was. It was very kafkaesque, a court you don’t recognize for a crime you aren’t told. Again I want to emphasize he was in one of those positions Google does where they test you out as a contractor for 18 months before deciding to flip you or not, so it could have been related to that different kind of employment status.
- 1024core 8y ago
  DeVaul (the accused) admitted it and apologized.
  - mythrwy 8y ago
    Is that kind of like plea bargain though? More trouble and potential negative repercussions than to fight about it than just fess up and make it go away? I don't know the specifics of this case, could well not be, just wondering if it's possible.
- nostromo 8y ago
  It's pretty clear there are two sets of rules depending on how senior you are in the company. It's also normal now for historically "powerful" groups to have a different set of rules about what is ok to say. For example, referencing Christ isn't treated the same way as saying something comparable about Buddha or Vishnu, and will likely be treated with more scrutiny. The best bet for a new employee is to just avoid any hot button issues entirely.
- itsdrewmiller 8y ago
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
gadders 8y ago
I think it's amazing to compare the handling of this case with that of James Damore. Whatever you may think of what he wrote, he never physically assaulted anybody.
- MrZongle2 8y ago
  No, but for many Damore is guilty of wrongthink, and deserved his fate. The fact that your comment was downvoted without comment seems quite telling.
  - ohithereyou 8y ago
    Right. Nowadays, physical altercations can be swept under the rug. Ideological ones, not having drunk sufficient amounts of kool-aid, generally cannot be.
- lhnz 8y ago
  You're right. It doesn't make sense unless there are many people at Google that prefer sexual harassment to people that think and say the wrong things. Either that or Damore just had less social standing than this person and therefore was treated differently.
- vkou 8y ago
  No, he didn't physically assault someone, he just created a toxic work environment. Which, in the great at-will employment state of California falls under the "You can be fired for any reason, including no reason whatsoever" employment clause. But yes, it would be nice if companies actually published their HR procedures, and expectations, so that they could be held accountable for how they carry out (Or fail to carry out) disciplinary action. So that you can actually know that there is a double standard for the rank and file, versus the thought leaders, instead of having to infer it from reading tea leaves.
  - gadders 8y ago
    Well, accused of creating a toxic work environment by sending a dispassionate email with citations about the gender balance in technology. After the HR department specifically asked for feedback. Again, he could be talking rubbish, but I would expect that to be treated a lot less harshly than coercing someone into giving you a blowjob.
Raphmedia 8y ago
Accused != convicted. The article itself says that 48 people (13 of them seniors members) were fired for similar claims. It's not as if Google was turning a blind eye.
- ocdtrekkie 8y ago
  Both the incident in question and Andy Rubin's incident took place in 2013, and nobody at Google has denied either account. DeVaul himself has apologized for the incident, so claiming someone is just making a baseless accusation is nonsensical. Google's statement in their employee email was about firing 48 people for sexual misconduct since 2016. Which is to say, they may not be turning a blind eye now, but definitely were then. And of course, as the article points out, even if they've improved their handling of these incidents, DeVaul is still working there.
  - lliamander 8y ago
    I have no sympathy for DeVaul's behavior. Based on what I know of the details of the situation, I probably would have supported his firing at the time of the incident. I might still now. However, since he has been allowed to continue to work there, has his behavior reformed or not? If it has, then it's not clear what benefit there would be in his firing now.
- lucian-g 8y ago
  confessed != accused > In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.” Quote comes from https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-review https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-... > DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an “error of judgment.”
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    Apologizing for an error of judgment does not mean admitting to the details of the accusation.
devit 8y ago
<< As the Times reported, DeVaul, whose title is “director of rapid evaluation and mad science,” told a young female job candidate during a 2013 interview that he was in a polyamorous relationship. Later, when he saw the woman at Burning Man while she was still waiting to hear back about the job, DeVaul asked her if she would take off her shirt for a back massage. >> This certainly does not seem something that warrants firing, and might even be correct behavior depending on circumstances (e.g. if he had reason to believe she would not feel coerced or otherwise be happy consenting).
- Bootvis 8y ago
  Saying this to an interviewee is in no way correct, are you mad?
- dbt00 8y ago
  There is no universe in which a (non sex work) job interview is the right venue for a conversation about your sexual proclivities. FFS.
  - jtmcmc 8y ago
    I have known many interviewees/ers that talked about their queerness in tech interviews.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
onetimemanytime 8y ago
Should take a LOT more than an accusation to get fired.
- lucian-g 8y ago
  Read the article - the title is misleading: it suggests he was just accused -- while he actually admitted the events took place https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassment-allegations-employment.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassm... > Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.” https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-review https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-... > In 2013, Richard DeVaul, one of the directors for Google’s moonshot division X, invited job interviewee Star Simpson to arts festival Burning Man. There, DeVaul offered the engineer a back rub, asking her to remove her shirt. She felt coerced to at least receive a neck rub. She was passed over for the job without explanation. After hesitating for two years, Simpson reported the matter to human resources after seeing DeVaul rise to prominence in profiles from The New York Times and The Atlantic. DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an “error of judgment.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... > In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.
randyrand 8y ago
He's accused of sexual harassment for this at burning man? I thought part of the point of Burning man is sexual freedom? The expectation at burning man is that you will encounter nudity, sexuality, etc. It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club. edit: 'seeing' at a swingers club is implying that some sexual move/request was made. That's the point of these clubs.
- warent 8y ago
  Does it sound plausible that the following thought crossed her mind: "I feel uncomfortable with this, but if I turn it down, the future of my career might be jeopardized." > "It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club." No, she did not complain about seeing him there. You are getting mixed up. He actually made an advance on her there. That is also not okay for a boss to do in a swingers club either.
  - randyrand 8y ago
    see my edit. as to your first point, it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way. If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment! you don’t need to be someone’s boss in order to have the ability to do harm to someone. Not hiring someone over a sexual denial, stalking, rape, spreading false rumors about people - these are all illegal for a reason - so that we can deny people without constant fear of harm. What this google exec did was not harassment.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      "it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way." That is not a correct interpretation of US law. Sexual harassment in the workplace includes any unwelcome sexual conduct. Quoting from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html : > Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but-tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD ¶ 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. The Eleventh Circuit provided a general definition of "unwelcome conduct" in Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d at 903: the challenged conduct must be unwelcome "in the sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive." The specific legal definition is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 . Note that "repeated" in not in that definition. For example, going back to the EEOC guidelines: "in "quid pro quo" cases a single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to the granting or denial of employment benefits." That seems to be the exact issue at hand, yes? Furthermore, even in the context of 'hostile workplace', which is distinct from 'quid pro quo', Barrett v. Omaha National Bank established that even "a single, unusually severe incident of harassment" may be enough to "constitute[] actionable sexual harassment". "Not hiring someone over a sexual denial" is quid pro quo harassment, hence illegal. Was there some other law you were thinking of which made it illegal? "If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment!" Which why the law doesn't say that. The same EEOC guidelines say: > In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive." It then gives an example: > Example - Charging Party alleges that her coworker made repeated unwelcome sexual advances toward her. An investigation discloses that the alleged "advances" consisted of invitations to join a group of employees who regularly socialized at dinner after work. The coworker's invitations, viewed in that context and from the perspective of a reasonable person, would not have created a hostile environment and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment. and, regarding hostile workplaces: > As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII."
madrox 8y ago
I've lived in San Francisco for a while, and it's impossible to socialize here without being confronted by polyamory and openly casual attitudes toward alternative lifestyles. The first time poly came up for me was a meetup at Twitter, of all places. After a couple years here it becomes a norm that everyone here has a kink and is pretty open about it. The people that go to burning man (I, too, am a burner) never fully decompress. I say all this because I can totally see how someone normalizes to stuff the rest of the world would say isn't ok. I don't think DeVaul is a creep. I think he's lived in the SF cultural bubble too long. Whether he should lose his job for that, I don't know, but I'm one of those people who think intention is 80% of what matters in cases like this. This is also why I think it's important that tech leadership expands beyond the bay. It's subtle (or maybe to some not so subtle) ways like this that highlight how people here think differently about what should be normal.
- romwell 8y ago
  The problem was not kink. The problem was not Burning Man. The problem was: a)Mentioning his relationship status ("poly") to a candidate during the interview b)Asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate was still waiting for response This is textbook discrimination. It's good to see him go.[1] [1]https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alphabet-x-unit-is-out-6f583d1e-91e3-4a8b-ae2b-51fd4517ec74.html https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alp...
  - KaiserPro 8y ago
    It is indeed wrong, for all these points. Even if you subscribe to the "its ok, its a cultural thing" Its wrong for the company Why? because he is suggesting that said person can be hired because of a quality unrelated to what the company needs. It is at this point that "he is an exec and therefore creates value at the company far out weighing this 'temporary impairment of judgement'" becomes null and void. His judgement is causing shareholder harm. Therefore the company should find someone who is able to provide the company with better value and judgement.
eqdw 8y ago
It is equal parts concerning and hilarious to me that actions taken at Burning Man are punished by an employer. 3/4ths of the tech industry would lose their jobs if such a rule was applied consistently
- KaiserPro 8y ago
  what one does in their own time is indeed nothing to do with the company. Suggesting that one can get a job with one's employer if you just do x, is either fraud or gross misconduct. If he had not mentioned the job then he'd just be an arsehole who discusses their sexual proclivities in an professional setting.

92 points by smacktoward 8y ago

Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11) Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
cagenut 8y ago
maybe read your own source? https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/read-article-11.html https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea... its got nothing to do with your employment. unless you're assuming a right to a job in your argument.
- Hei1Fuya 8y ago
  As long as we don't have UBI there's a need for a job to feed yourself.
  - adventured 8y ago
    Every nice welfare state has a lot of unemployed people. France has a permanent unemployed class, with perpetually high unemployment as a result of their labor laws and generous welfare state. Those people are not starving to death. Clearly UBI is in fact not necessary at all, so say the best countries in the world, from Denmark to Canada.
    - ambicapter 8y ago
      Are you saying that non-welfare states never have a permanent unemployed class? Or (non-exclusive or) that they have fewer unemployed, on average?
    - toweringgoat 8y ago
      Germany? Switzerland? Both are welfare states (even if not as extreme as some places), and have low unemployment.
      - Hei1Fuya 8y ago
        German unemployment benefits are conditional on showing evidence that you're seeking jobs. So it's still founded on the assumption that everyone able should be working.
- mike22223333 8y ago
  So you are going to justify it like that? These days liberals are falsely using the word liberal. A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what. Not what your emotions say.
  - danharaj 8y ago
    Where did you get that idea?
  - happytoexplain 8y ago
    My interpretation is the opposite - a lot of events lately provoke critical arguments that use the objective verbiage of legality and human rights to frame emotional, subjective opinions. E.g. the line between a private platform reasonably removing a user or something a user posted for ToS violation, and an attack on free speech. Or the line between reasonably punishing an employee who has violated workplace behavior policies, and an attack on innocence until proven guilty. I would argue that, in this domain of examples, liberals explicitly favor reason and prudence, not extremity toward one side or the other (though there may certainly be cases where there is a general bias toward one side of the line or the other that arguably fails that ideology).
  - munchbunny 8y ago
    A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what. That's so wrong it's not even relevant. It's like if you looked up "dog" in the dictionary and the definition was "a leafy plant." Are you sure you didn't mean a "literal"?
  - UncleMeat 8y ago
    Good to know that these classical liberals would have supported slavery, denying voting rights to women, and jim crow. That's not really a system that I'd like to follow.
deanCommie 8y ago
It still is - in the judicial system. There has never been and never will be such a presumption in private enterprise. We can fix it if you want, but you won't like the amount of Government control over industry that would require. Also, I realize "unverified accusation" is a commonly used distracting turn of phrase, but that hardly seems appropriate here: > ...an official at X told her, per the Times, that “her account was ‘more likely than not’ true and that ‘appropriate action’ was taken.” Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.” Sounds like verified, and admitted by the guilty party.
- all2 8y ago
  I am very curious about how people who do things like these remain employed. Is there anyone who has been on the back-end of one of these decisions? What's the motivation for keeping a predator around?
  - empath75 8y ago
    If the predator makes them more money than it costs to pay off the victims.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Which victims are paid off? The cost is in lost/demoralized employees who would otherwise do valuable work, and in externalized harm to people outside the company.
      - creep 8y ago
        >The cost is in lost/demoralized employees who would otherwise do valuable work No, stop, that's hardly a cost worth paying attention to for a large company. An exec is worth much more than almost anyone of lower rank. That's the problem, though. There is no way you can appeal to a large company in terms of the cost of lost employees who are victims of assault by higher-ups. The media storm is what gets them, it's the bad publicity they fear-- in my opinion that is the only way to get anything "done" in terms of assault cases like this. At the same time, when we rely on bad publicity to force action, we risk ruining the lives of innocent people. Men and women in powerful positions are often targeted with these sorts of accusations for the sole purpose of getting them out of the way. I have no proposed solution but appealing in the way you have is not it. It just does not make sense.
ashelmire 8y ago
People have forgotten that we enshrined that as a legal right because we determined it was best for society (or, more likely, never thought about it). It's not just a legal principle; it's a principle of just society. When we ignore it in the corporate world or other aspects of private life, we're saying that we think mob justice and presumption of guilt produces a better world (or a better corporation, etc). Of course, even in our legal system, all it takes is an accusation. How many people are currently serving times for crimes they didn't commit? I'd bet the answer is disturbing high, especially when the level of certainty is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do so many convicted of murder or other crimes later get proven innocent? If someone didn't commit a crime... you'd think there was quite a reasonable doubt.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  Leaving aside that the person in question here has admitted fault, so there's no question of guilt here... I often marvel that some people seem willing to completely ignore evidence that doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction. Any information, whether an admission of guilt, an accusation, multiple accusations, direct observation, observation of borderline or boundary-pushing behavior, or anythings else, provides some amount of evidence. Start with some prior probability of someone engaging in bad behavior (of any type, this isn't specific to harassment), in the absence of any information. Update that probability based on what evidence you have. You now have some estimated probability of someone engaging in that bad behavior. There's a threshold ("beyond a reasonable doubt", say 99%) where you'd use it to convict someone of a crime, depriving them of personal liberty to protect others and theoretically to attempt to reform them. There's a lower threshold (50%, "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities") where you'd use in a civil case, such as a lawsuit. There's a still lower threshold used for "probable cause", enough to get a warrant to investigate. There's a still lower threshold for "reasonable suspicion". See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st... for a wide variety of legal standards other than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the US legal system already applies, and some of the circumstances in which they apply. So, continuing the same premise: there's a threshold (most definitely not 99%) where you'd decide not to put someone in a position of power that they seem likely to abuse. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to use a quote from someone to endorse a press release. There's a threshold where you'd refuse to employ someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone attend a conference where they might harm others or make others unwelcome. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone babysit your kids. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to date someone, or be friends with someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide to make sure you're never alone with someone. I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?
swang 8y ago
didn't you just condemn the accuser yourself by assuming she is lying without a jury of her peers to reach a verdict?! /s what you are advocating for here is a nanny state where every time there is an indiscretion a person is innocent until the full power of an international court comes in to deem a person guilty. you don't like the way society is going with this, yet your argument is that we need a trial to convict something in the public opinion. instead of advocating for one extreme to fight another extreme why not just use your own reasoning to determine which person you believe. google found the accusation credible, yet did nothing for the _victim_ other than tell them to keep quiet. is that also justice to you? and you think google actually wants some kind of trial on this? if they did they would be referring these matters to the local authorities. but instead it's just covered up, it's been "handled" don't worry though since it seems like no one actually gets punished for this kinda stuff other than a public shaming.
- eberkund 8y ago
  What would you suggest? Asking a woman to take off her shirt for a massage or hitting on her during an interview; while creepy, is not illegal so there would be no reason to bring this matter into a courtroom.
  - swang 8y ago
    That is my whole point. How do you convict this? Spitting in general in the US is not illegal. Should you spit inside of a store? No and you’ll probably be asked to leave. When the owner says that dude is an asshole who spat in my store do you respond, “hold up where is his jury of peers?” Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer. The bigger issue is do you want to work under someone who does that? Either that person has no understanding of societal cues or they do and are asserting their power to take advantage of someone.
    - munchbunny 8y ago
      How do you convict this? I assume you've had to take sexual harassment training before? It's usually explained there. In the United States, the EEOC files lawsuits on behalf of the victims. Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer Yup, there is, and it comes from the EEOC suing you.
dawhizkid 8y ago
This is about an HR decision of a private company, not the US judicial system we're talking about.
ur-whale 8y ago
>Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? In most modern media, certainly not. And on Slate, it's usually the opposite (guilty until proven innocent), especially if the subject happens to be in one of the supposedly dominant classes (white|male|rich|anglo-saxon|straight, etc...)
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11) Only for penal offenses (same source [0].) Torts are not penal offenses, and workplace discipline that doesn't involve government action is even farther from a penal offense. > Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination? An accusation, even unverified, is not required for termination. “At-will employment” means pretty much what the name says. Outside of special cases (tenured and/or civil service status, special employment cobtracts) a job is a discretionary immediately revocable relationship, not a property interest secured by right. [0] https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/read-article-11.html https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea...
- imh 8y ago
  I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment." Isn't that exactly what termination would be? If you terminate someone for a thing, I'd say that fits the bill as punishment for the thing.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment." You seem to have looked up “penal” alone in a general-use dictionary, rather than the legal term “penal offense” in a law dictionary. Unsurprisingly, the treaty, a document of international law, uses a legal term of art in (one of) it's legal sense(s). The term generally means “an offense punishable by law”, but is more specifically construed in a couple different senses, narrowly as synonymous with criminal offenses, but sometimes more broadly incorporating also offenses which are not criminal but include an exemplary / punitive sanction as well as (and particularly not tied to) any compensatory one. Termination of employment is not a sanction (punitive or otherwise) by law. (Well, in the case under discussion; it can be a legal sanction, e.g., under military law.)
  - eesmith 8y ago
    The linked-to text from the UDHR starts "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense." If your choice of definition were correct, that would mean that any firing which is part of a punishment would have to go through the court system first. Since that isn't the case, that means your choice of definition is not correct. The penal code is "a code of laws concerning crimes and offenses and their punishment" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penal%20code https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penal%20code . A penal offense is something which is counter to the penal code.
lucian-g 8y ago
> Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination? You're probably commenting the title (which says he was just accused) and not the article. DeVaul admitted the events took place and apologized. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... > In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.
munchbunny 8y ago
What's your bar for "verified"?

Bucephalus355 8y ago

I had dinner with a friend last week who mentioned, almost in passing, that he had been reported to HR at Google. Was shocking, since I had worked with him at another company for a decade, and he had been very kind and compassionate, almost to a fault. He is a gay white male, but also a Christian (can’t remember which denomination or whatever). He had assumed it was over something religious he had said, HR did not tell him and spoke (understandably) in pretty general / vague terms. This person was weirdly resigned to their fate. They are a contractor, so maybe they’re scared of being let go, but the vibe I got from him was just “that’s how it is these days and I have to accept it”. I guess what creeped me out was how he never heard what the accusation was. It was very kafkaesque, a court you don’t recognize for a crime you aren’t told. Again I want to emphasize he was in one of those positions Google does where they test you out as a contractor for 18 months before deciding to flip you or not, so it could have been related to that different kind of employment status.

1024core 8y ago
DeVaul (the accused) admitted it and apologized.
- mythrwy 8y ago
  Is that kind of like plea bargain though? More trouble and potential negative repercussions than to fight about it than just fess up and make it go away? I don't know the specifics of this case, could well not be, just wondering if it's possible.
nostromo 8y ago
It's pretty clear there are two sets of rules depending on how senior you are in the company. It's also normal now for historically "powerful" groups to have a different set of rules about what is ok to say. For example, referencing Christ isn't treated the same way as saying something comparable about Buddha or Vishnu, and will likely be treated with more scrutiny. The best bet for a new employee is to just avoid any hot button issues entirely.
itsdrewmiller 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

gadders 8y ago

I think it's amazing to compare the handling of this case with that of James Damore. Whatever you may think of what he wrote, he never physically assaulted anybody.

MrZongle2 8y ago
No, but for many Damore is guilty of wrongthink, and deserved his fate. The fact that your comment was downvoted without comment seems quite telling.
- ohithereyou 8y ago
  Right. Nowadays, physical altercations can be swept under the rug. Ideological ones, not having drunk sufficient amounts of kool-aid, generally cannot be.
lhnz 8y ago
You're right. It doesn't make sense unless there are many people at Google that prefer sexual harassment to people that think and say the wrong things. Either that or Damore just had less social standing than this person and therefore was treated differently.
vkou 8y ago
No, he didn't physically assault someone, he just created a toxic work environment. Which, in the great at-will employment state of California falls under the "You can be fired for any reason, including no reason whatsoever" employment clause. But yes, it would be nice if companies actually published their HR procedures, and expectations, so that they could be held accountable for how they carry out (Or fail to carry out) disciplinary action. So that you can actually know that there is a double standard for the rank and file, versus the thought leaders, instead of having to infer it from reading tea leaves.
- gadders 8y ago
  Well, accused of creating a toxic work environment by sending a dispassionate email with citations about the gender balance in technology. After the HR department specifically asked for feedback. Again, he could be talking rubbish, but I would expect that to be treated a lot less harshly than coercing someone into giving you a blowjob.

Raphmedia 8y ago

Accused != convicted. The article itself says that 48 people (13 of them seniors members) were fired for similar claims. It's not as if Google was turning a blind eye.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
Both the incident in question and Andy Rubin's incident took place in 2013, and nobody at Google has denied either account. DeVaul himself has apologized for the incident, so claiming someone is just making a baseless accusation is nonsensical. Google's statement in their employee email was about firing 48 people for sexual misconduct since 2016. Which is to say, they may not be turning a blind eye now, but definitely were then. And of course, as the article points out, even if they've improved their handling of these incidents, DeVaul is still working there.
- lliamander 8y ago
  I have no sympathy for DeVaul's behavior. Based on what I know of the details of the situation, I probably would have supported his firing at the time of the incident. I might still now. However, since he has been allowed to continue to work there, has his behavior reformed or not? If it has, then it's not clear what benefit there would be in his firing now.
lucian-g 8y ago
confessed != accused > In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.” Quote comes from https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-review https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-... > DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an “error of judgment.”
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  Apologizing for an error of judgment does not mean admitting to the details of the accusation.

devit 8y ago

<< As the Times reported, DeVaul, whose title is “director of rapid evaluation and mad science,” told a young female job candidate during a 2013 interview that he was in a polyamorous relationship. Later, when he saw the woman at Burning Man while she was still waiting to hear back about the job, DeVaul asked her if she would take off her shirt for a back massage. >> This certainly does not seem something that warrants firing, and might even be correct behavior depending on circumstances (e.g. if he had reason to believe she would not feel coerced or otherwise be happy consenting).

Bootvis 8y ago
Saying this to an interviewee is in no way correct, are you mad?
dbt00 8y ago
There is no universe in which a (non sex work) job interview is the right venue for a conversation about your sexual proclivities. FFS.
- jtmcmc 8y ago
  I have known many interviewees/ers that talked about their queerness in tech interviews.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

onetimemanytime 8y ago

Should take a LOT more than an accusation to get fired.

lucian-g 8y ago
Read the article - the title is misleading: it suggests he was just accused -- while he actually admitted the events took place https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassment-allegations-employment.html https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassm... > Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.” https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-review https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-... > In 2013, Richard DeVaul, one of the directors for Google’s moonshot division X, invited job interviewee Star Simpson to arts festival Burning Man. There, DeVaul offered the engineer a back rub, asking her to remove her shirt. She felt coerced to at least receive a neck rub. She was passed over for the job without explanation. After hesitating for two years, Simpson reported the matter to human resources after seeing DeVaul rise to prominence in profiles from The New York Times and The Atlantic. DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an “error of judgment.” https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... > In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.

randyrand 8y ago

He's accused of sexual harassment for this at burning man? I thought part of the point of Burning man is sexual freedom? The expectation at burning man is that you will encounter nudity, sexuality, etc. It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club. edit: 'seeing' at a swingers club is implying that some sexual move/request was made. That's the point of these clubs.

warent 8y ago
Does it sound plausible that the following thought crossed her mind: "I feel uncomfortable with this, but if I turn it down, the future of my career might be jeopardized." > "It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club." No, she did not complain about seeing him there. You are getting mixed up. He actually made an advance on her there. That is also not okay for a boss to do in a swingers club either.
- randyrand 8y ago
  see my edit. as to your first point, it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way. If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment! you don’t need to be someone’s boss in order to have the ability to do harm to someone. Not hiring someone over a sexual denial, stalking, rape, spreading false rumors about people - these are all illegal for a reason - so that we can deny people without constant fear of harm. What this google exec did was not harassment.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    "it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way." That is not a correct interpretation of US law. Sexual harassment in the workplace includes any unwelcome sexual conduct. Quoting from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html : > Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but-tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD ¶ 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. The Eleventh Circuit provided a general definition of "unwelcome conduct" in Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d at 903: the challenged conduct must be unwelcome "in the sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive." The specific legal definition is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 . Note that "repeated" in not in that definition. For example, going back to the EEOC guidelines: "in "quid pro quo" cases a single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to the granting or denial of employment benefits." That seems to be the exact issue at hand, yes? Furthermore, even in the context of 'hostile workplace', which is distinct from 'quid pro quo', Barrett v. Omaha National Bank established that even "a single, unusually severe incident of harassment" may be enough to "constitute[] actionable sexual harassment". "Not hiring someone over a sexual denial" is quid pro quo harassment, hence illegal. Was there some other law you were thinking of which made it illegal? "If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment!" Which why the law doesn't say that. The same EEOC guidelines say: > In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive." It then gives an example: > Example - Charging Party alleges that her coworker made repeated unwelcome sexual advances toward her. An investigation discloses that the alleged "advances" consisted of invitations to join a group of employees who regularly socialized at dinner after work. The coworker's invitations, viewed in that context and from the perspective of a reasonable person, would not have created a hostile environment and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment. and, regarding hostile workplaces: > As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII."

madrox 8y ago

I've lived in San Francisco for a while, and it's impossible to socialize here without being confronted by polyamory and openly casual attitudes toward alternative lifestyles. The first time poly came up for me was a meetup at Twitter, of all places. After a couple years here it becomes a norm that everyone here has a kink and is pretty open about it. The people that go to burning man (I, too, am a burner) never fully decompress. I say all this because I can totally see how someone normalizes to stuff the rest of the world would say isn't ok. I don't think DeVaul is a creep. I think he's lived in the SF cultural bubble too long. Whether he should lose his job for that, I don't know, but I'm one of those people who think intention is 80% of what matters in cases like this. This is also why I think it's important that tech leadership expands beyond the bay. It's subtle (or maybe to some not so subtle) ways like this that highlight how people here think differently about what should be normal.

romwell 8y ago
The problem was not kink. The problem was not Burning Man. The problem was: a)Mentioning his relationship status ("poly") to a candidate during the interview b)Asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate was still waiting for response This is textbook discrimination. It's good to see him go.[1] [1]https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alphabet-x-unit-is-out-6f583d1e-91e3-4a8b-ae2b-51fd4517ec74.html https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alp...
- KaiserPro 8y ago
  It is indeed wrong, for all these points. Even if you subscribe to the "its ok, its a cultural thing" Its wrong for the company Why? because he is suggesting that said person can be hired because of a quality unrelated to what the company needs. It is at this point that "he is an exec and therefore creates value at the company far out weighing this 'temporary impairment of judgement'" becomes null and void. His judgement is causing shareholder harm. Therefore the company should find someone who is able to provide the company with better value and judgement.

eqdw 8y ago

It is equal parts concerning and hilarious to me that actions taken at Burning Man are punished by an employer. 3/4ths of the tech industry would lose their jobs if such a rule was applied consistently

KaiserPro 8y ago
what one does in their own time is indeed nothing to do with the company. Suggesting that one can get a job with one's employer if you just do x, is either fraud or gross misconduct. If he had not mentioned the job then he'd just be an arsehole who discusses their sexual proclivities in an professional setting.