4 ms·
Since she's an at will worker, it'll be difficult to prove she was fired illegally
by notsureaboutpg 6y ago
Since she's an at will worker, it'll be difficult to prove she was fired illegally
- monocasa 6y agoAll the more reason for her to have a copy of her emails.
- NovemberWhiskey 6y ago"I know, since I'm worried I'm going to get fired for vague non-specific reasons, I'm going to directly violate company policy and get terminated for cause" is an odd game plan.
- monocasa 6y agoI assume there was something extremely incriminating in the emails if she backed them up.
- yuliyp 6y ago"company policy" at large corporations is not designed to do anything other than provide cover for the corporation to do what it wants.
- knorker 6y agoIs "no e filtration of company data" an arbitrary "gotcha" policy?
- monocasa 6y agoIf it comes out that they mean discussing specific emails with an employment lawyer, then yeah, kind of.
- knorker 6y agoIt's a theory. If she doesn't sue then we can assume that's not what happened. If she does sue, then it'll probably still be a secret settlement, so we won't know. :-( Personally i don't believe this theory. Because it's so easy to counter what google said, then, and google's lawyers are not that stupid.
- yuliyp 6y agoDid you ever leave a notebook that had work notes at home or in your car? Ever gotten an e-mail on your work account that should have gone to a personal one? Use any SaaS service that would get access to company data?
- knorker 6y agoAre you honestly saying this is what happened here? I think your question is ridiculous.
- yuliyp 6y agoNo, what I'm saying is that dismissing a complaint of the company doing something wrong is missing the point. Deferring to a policy whose theoretical purpose is to defend against leaks and protect trade secrets as a justification for firing someone who was archiving their own e-mails is naive.
- knorker 6y ago"Archiving their own emails". There's an orwellian tint to your comments. This policy is not arbitrary, rare, or unreasonable. In fact not enforcing it is not really an option, if you want to continue to exist as a company. Every comment you have made in this thread has tried to distort the truth, and you've avoided saying what actually happened. I have no respect for this sort of rhetoric. Instead of making an actual point you deliberately misdescribe the facts. You, sir or madam, are a liar. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm calling neither Mitchell, Gebru, nor Google blameless here. But there's no point discussing it with someone who's actively out to move away from the truth.