5 ms·

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 r

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
    > 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. You can't first claim that you're not using California law in your argument, then immediately cliam that your arguement is based in California law. Particularly when I explained how your undertanding of California law is mistaken, and doubly so when the crux of your misunderstanding is what a resignation consists of. > ... California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) ... _If_ it was a resignation in the first place, which requires the employee to set the end date. That is not this situation.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      The point is for someone to be lying their use of the word has to be inconsistent with how any reasonable person could use the word. My argument is that if you use the word in the way California law uses it your not lying. But also if you don't use it in the way California law uses it but the way U.S. law uses your not lying. Or if you use it in a manner that's inconsistent with California law and U.S. law but is how people use the word in everyday language your not lying. "Did Gebru voluntarily quit according to California law?" "Is it obviously lying to say resigned?" These are two separate questions. Also I'm not convinced that it says anywhere in the California statutes that a letter of resignation requires an end date to be considered a letter of resignation. (It might say that about voluntary quitting, it might say that in case law, but I don't think it says clearly in any statute that to be considered a letter of resignation it requires an end date (which is different from whether or not it was a voluntary quit)
JamesBarney 6y ago
> > 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... Next line > On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  There wasn't an announced leaving date.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    To get back to basics, the definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position." It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose. She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".
    - monocasa 6y ago
      Jumping from a legal definition to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition doesn't look great for your argument. "Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water. To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fact very well and therefore lied to the press about the circumstances. You even use the phrase "Gebru firing" in your first post in this particular thread.
      - JamesBarney 6y ago
        I'm sorry if it was confusing. But I was not using the law to argue she was ineligible for unemployment. Or that legally she "voluntarily quit".(though there is at least an argument she did) Only that Google's or Jeff Dean's use of word resigned was not an easily verifiable lie. I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to work there anymore. It was also a resignation in sense she didn't want to work there anymore. You're arguing that it's a bold faced law to describe a letter of resignation as such if there is not a specific date. You haven't shown this is true in California law much less English. And if it's true in any sense it's not a lie. If I went to my boss and said "I don't wanna work here anywhere, I'll check my calendar to find a convenient last day". And they respond with don't bother go home you'll get your two weeks. You're argument is if someone described that event to someone else as me resigning they'd be a big ol liar? That doesn't seem right to me.

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
  > 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. You can't first claim that you're not using California law in your argument, then immediately cliam that your arguement is based in California law. Particularly when I explained how your undertanding of California law is mistaken, and doubly so when the crux of your misunderstanding is what a resignation consists of. > ... California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) ... _If_ it was a resignation in the first place, which requires the employee to set the end date. That is not this situation.
  - JamesBarney 6y ago
    The point is for someone to be lying their use of the word has to be inconsistent with how any reasonable person could use the word. My argument is that if you use the word in the way California law uses it your not lying. But also if you don't use it in the way California law uses it but the way U.S. law uses your not lying. Or if you use it in a manner that's inconsistent with California law and U.S. law but is how people use the word in everyday language your not lying. "Did Gebru voluntarily quit according to California law?" "Is it obviously lying to say resigned?" These are two separate questions. Also I'm not convinced that it says anywhere in the California statutes that a letter of resignation requires an end date to be considered a letter of resignation. (It might say that about voluntary quitting, it might say that in case law, but I don't think it says clearly in any statute that to be considered a letter of resignation it requires an end date (which is different from whether or not it was a voluntary quit)

JamesBarney 6y ago

> > 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... Next line > On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit

pseudalopex 6y ago
There wasn't an announced leaving date.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  To get back to basics, the definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position." It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose. She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".
  - monocasa 6y ago
    Jumping from a legal definition to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition doesn't look great for your argument. "Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water. To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fact very well and therefore lied to the press about the circumstances. You even use the phrase "Gebru firing" in your first post in this particular thread.
    - JamesBarney 6y ago
      I'm sorry if it was confusing. But I was not using the law to argue she was ineligible for unemployment. Or that legally she "voluntarily quit".(though there is at least an argument she did) Only that Google's or Jeff Dean's use of word resigned was not an easily verifiable lie. I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to work there anymore. It was also a resignation in sense she didn't want to work there anymore. You're arguing that it's a bold faced law to describe a letter of resignation as such if there is not a specific date. You haven't shown this is true in California law much less English. And if it's true in any sense it's not a lie. If I went to my boss and said "I don't wanna work here anywhere, I'll check my calendar to find a convenient last day". And they respond with don't bother go home you'll get your two weeks. You're argument is if someone described that event to someone else as me resigning they'd be a big ol liar? That doesn't seem right to me.