3 ms·
This is the precedent that says that while parts of Damore's memo would be protected by labor laws, "the statements regarding biological differences between the
by geofft 7y ago
This is the precedent that says that while parts of Damore's memo would be protected by labor laws, "the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected" and if "an employee’s conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions," and concludes "that the memorandum included both protected and unprotected statements" and Google only fired him for the latter?
Yes, I imagine they're happy about that. It confirms that they're protected.
- thu2111 7y agoNRLB ruled that citing scientific studies is "so harmful as to be unprotected", which is a bad joke. If citing studies is bad enough to be fired, what about the academics who wrote them? That agency has got no credibility anymore as a consequence.
- geofft 7y agoSo if the agency has no credibility, then there's no sense in appealing to the agency's mistaken opinion in the Damore case that he should have lost his protection, and so these employees should not lose it either, right?