3 ms·

> They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. Gebru sent a conditional resignation(ultim

> They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation. Gebru sent a conditional resignation(ultimatum) letter to Google. Google rejected those conditions and accepted her resignation. Whether or not you count that as resigned or fired is a definitional issue. But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. The general rule has been "Would a reasonable person who read this letter conclude they had the intention of quitting if their conditions were not met?". And Gebru's letter really made it seem like she has every intention of quitting if her conditions were not met. So this is definitely not lying in an easily verifiable way. > No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing). This is probably true, I'm not saying we know the whole story. I'm arguing that it is highly probably(>90%) she exfiltrated data from Google. > The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers. This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move.

monocasa 6y ago
> But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her. It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date. Google fired her immediately. > In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...
  - monocasa 6y ago
    > > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. > This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, because she didn't specify an end date to her employment. Therefore the sentence you've cited doesn't apply. That's more to cover "I said I was quitting on the 17th if you as the company don't hire this person", and trying to claim that the otherwise voluntary quit was a termination because the company "had a choice". > It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena. Maybe, maybe not. I've seen wrongful termination cases play out in favor of the employee only because they made copies of the relevant emails. A company that's already committing illegal acts terminating someone doesn't always comply with the discovery process the way they should.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      The question is "Did Google verifiably lie?" I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word. Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way? 1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, and demonstrated she wanted to leave the job 2. California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) 3. Gebru did not withdraw her resignation 4. Gebru no longer wished to work at Google 5. Gebru(as a manager) advised co-workers to stop work 6. Google "accepted" her resignation. I don't think Gebru is a liar either. I think that her resigning and being fired are both reasonable one word descriptions of the events. Fired implies she wanted to continue working at Google, and resigned implies Google wanted to keep her employed. But neither of those were true. They just mutually decided they weren't a good fit. Gebru because she thinks Google is evil, and Google because they thought Gebru was being unprofessional.

monocasa 6y ago

> But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. California is not one of those jurisdictions. She was fired. That is a verifiable fact. > This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move. Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.

JamesBarney 6y ago
https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. > Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her. It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date. Google fired her immediately. > In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...
- monocasa 6y ago
  > > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit. > This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions. She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, because she didn't specify an end date to her employment. Therefore the sentence you've cited doesn't apply. That's more to cover "I said I was quitting on the 17th if you as the company don't hire this person", and trying to claim that the otherwise voluntary quit was a termination because the company "had a choice". > It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena. Maybe, maybe not. I've seen wrongful termination cases play out in favor of the employee only because they made copies of the relevant emails. A company that's already committing illegal acts terminating someone doesn't always comply with the discovery process the way they should.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    The question is "Did Google verifiably lie?" I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word. Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way? 1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, and demonstrated she wanted to leave the job 2. California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) 3. Gebru did not withdraw her resignation 4. Gebru no longer wished to work at Google 5. Gebru(as a manager) advised co-workers to stop work 6. Google "accepted" her resignation. I don't think Gebru is a liar either. I think that her resigning and being fired are both reasonable one word descriptions of the events. Fired implies she wanted to continue working at Google, and resigned implies Google wanted to keep her employed. But neither of those were true. They just mutually decided they weren't a good fit. Gebru because she thinks Google is evil, and Google because they thought Gebru was being unprofessional.