3 ms·

I'll just point out that Google itself has backed off on statements that she resigned. Sundar's email (the most recent public comms) limit itself to describing

I'll just point out that Google itself has backed off on statements that she resigned. Sundar's email (the most recent public comms) limit itself to describing it as "her departure", and my understanding of California law is that her "departure" would be classified as a dismissal, not a resignation, though ultimately this depends on very particular specifics that aren't public, such as when her last paydate was, however what I've seen seems to suggest that it would lean towards dismissal. [0] For what its worth, I don't think "threatening to resign" is the same as resignation. Much as I don't think "threatening to shoot someone" is attempted homicide. [0]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-memo-on-timnit-gebru-dismissal.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/09/google-ceo-sundar-pichai-mem...

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
That comment from Sundar bolsters the fact she resigned. People were raking him over the coals to reverse the earlier claims of resignation to say she was fired, and seeing the CEO refuse to do that is pretty huge evidence of how secure the legal team must feel that calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.
- joshuamorton 6y ago
  I don't see how the CEO refusing to continue to say she resigned bolsters the claim she resigned. > calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction. Alternatively: publicly calling it a firing is essentially an admission of guilt. That's the one thing Google's lawyers would insist Google cannot do. Presumably neither one of us are the experts on EEOC and employment litigation strategies. So instead I'm going to take the statements at face value. And at face value: Google is no longer willing to state that Dr.Gebru resigned. Anything else is spin.
  - mlthoughts2018 6y ago
    The CEO didn’t refuse to say she resigned. He refused to say she was fired and refused to contradict earlier statements of her resignation.
    - joshuamorton 6y ago
      > He refused to say she was fired I agree! He also refused to say she resigned. Fancy that! The important thing to note is that one of these was a change in behavior and one was not.

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

That comment from Sundar bolsters the fact she resigned. People were raking him over the coals to reverse the earlier claims of resignation to say she was fired, and seeing the CEO refuse to do that is pretty huge evidence of how secure the legal team must feel that calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction.

joshuamorton 6y ago
I don't see how the CEO refusing to continue to say she resigned bolsters the claim she resigned. > calling it a resignation is completely correct and needs no retraction or correction. Alternatively: publicly calling it a firing is essentially an admission of guilt. That's the one thing Google's lawyers would insist Google cannot do. Presumably neither one of us are the experts on EEOC and employment litigation strategies. So instead I'm going to take the statements at face value. And at face value: Google is no longer willing to state that Dr.Gebru resigned. Anything else is spin.
- mlthoughts2018 6y ago
  The CEO didn’t refuse to say she resigned. He refused to say she was fired and refused to contradict earlier statements of her resignation.
  - joshuamorton 6y ago
    > He refused to say she was fired I agree! He also refused to say she resigned. Fancy that! The important thing to note is that one of these was a change in behavior and one was not.