7 ms·

This is what happens when people are radicalized by their feelings. I'm confident that their hearts are in the right place, but give me a break. If you work at

by daenz 5y ago

This is what happens when people are radicalized by their feelings. I'm confident that their hearts are in the right place, but give me a break. If you work at Google, you should have the sense that this kind of flimsy case is going nowhere at all. >But the plaintiffs' lawyer, Laurie Burgess, said it is not beyond what courts regularly must decide. Sounds like the lawyer is taking them for a ride on their dime, imo.

crawfordcomeaux 5y ago
There's literally no other way typ find out if this can be handled in the courts.
InvertedRhodium 5y ago
I'm inclined to agree, however if you remove the feelings from the situation - it doesn't seem much different to any other contractual obligations - like the amount and frequency of their wage payments. If your contract stipulates that you (and your employer) should "do no evil" without supplying a definition for "evil" then it really isn't that much different to any other contractual breach. Also, you'd have to be stupid to put that in an actual contract.
gnicholas 5y ago
I'd be surprised if this weren't a case taken on contingency (that is, where the lawyer only gets paid if the plaintiff wins or gets a settlement). The lawyer could still benefit from fame/notoriety even if they lose, but their incentives are generally aligned with the plaintiff's.
xxpor 5y ago
IANAL either, but this isn't nearly as crazy as I thought it'd be based on the headline. They basically say don't be evil was part of the employment contract (via the code of conduct), the employees fulfilled their obligation to advise Google not to be evil, and then Google fired them. From wikipedia: The elements of promissory estoppel are: * an express or implied promise; * detrimental reliance by the promisee foreseeable to a reasonable person in the promissor's position; * actual detrimental reliance by the promisee (worsening of their position); and for specific performance (as opposed to reliance damages), injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. Point by point: * Google promised to not be evil because every employee (including the CEO and members of the board) agrees to the code of conduct. * The promisee (employees) relied on that when they made their decition to work at google and enter the contract. That was reasonably foreseeable by the promissor (Google). * The employees actually did rely on the promise when they took the job, and circulated the petition to not be evil, since they were promised all employees agreed to it. No comment on the specific performance remedy since I didn't read that far to see if that's what they're demanding. Obviously there's points in there that could be reasonably debated, but it seems not-crazy enough to make it past a motion to dismiss.
- mountainb 5y ago
  You're talking about the promissory part, but not the estoppel part. Estoppel is the court's action to intervene to prevent the defendant from evading its obligation. It has to be a valid promise that the defendants relied on to get the court to take the action of estoppel. If something seems like a dumb case mostly designed to enrich the plaintiff attorney on the face of it, it most likely is a dumb case mostly intended to enrich the plaintiff attorney. "Don't be evil" falls pretty neatly under the definition of an illusory promise because it is "indefinite or vague." Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: "Illusory promises; mere statements of intention. Words of promise which by their terms make performance entirely optional with the “promisor” whatever may happen, or whatever course of conduct in other respects he may pursue, do not constitute a promise." The fact that the plaintiff attorney did not mention the concept of an illusory promise does not bode well for its chances, because the judge will certainly bring it up, and the defense will also certainly bring it up. This should have been addressed directly, since it is the most obvious defense to this claim. There are other defenses as well that were not brought up and addressed, such as that the nonsense claims related to media articles had any bearing whatsoever on any alleged breach of contract. Notwithstanding this, "Don't Be Evil" should have never been in any official code of conduct; it should have stayed in the realm of puffery to avoid exactly this type of problem. This is why everyone hates lawyers and other assorted 'fun police' personalities. This was a lazily written complaint that did not really get into the important nitty gritty of why these particular employees were injured. Further, maybe this is one of those California things that lets you get out of arbitration, but these employees are almost certainly bound by an arbitration agreement. Not mentioning why you get to dodge the forced arbitration clause in your contract in the complaint is annoying to the court and will also make it less likely to survive the obvious motion to dismiss due to the binding arbitration requirement.
  - xxpor 5y ago
    Yeah, that all seems reasonable.
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >Further, maybe this is one of those California things that lets you get out of arbitration Probably this? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB51 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
AlbertCory 5y ago
> Sounds like the lawyer is taking them for a ride on their dime, imo. Assuming she's not on contingency, or getting paid by some external group.

by daenz 5y ago

crawfordcomeaux 5y ago

There's literally no other way typ find out if this can be handled in the courts.

InvertedRhodium 5y ago

I'm inclined to agree, however if you remove the feelings from the situation - it doesn't seem much different to any other contractual obligations - like the amount and frequency of their wage payments. If your contract stipulates that you (and your employer) should "do no evil" without supplying a definition for "evil" then it really isn't that much different to any other contractual breach. Also, you'd have to be stupid to put that in an actual contract.

gnicholas 5y ago

I'd be surprised if this weren't a case taken on contingency (that is, where the lawyer only gets paid if the plaintiff wins or gets a settlement). The lawyer could still benefit from fame/notoriety even if they lose, but their incentives are generally aligned with the plaintiff's.

xxpor 5y ago

IANAL either, but this isn't nearly as crazy as I thought it'd be based on the headline. They basically say don't be evil was part of the employment contract (via the code of conduct), the employees fulfilled their obligation to advise Google not to be evil, and then Google fired them. From wikipedia: The elements of promissory estoppel are: * an express or implied promise; * detrimental reliance by the promisee foreseeable to a reasonable person in the promissor's position; * actual detrimental reliance by the promisee (worsening of their position); and for specific performance (as opposed to reliance damages), injustice can only be avoided by enforcing the promise. Point by point: * Google promised to not be evil because every employee (including the CEO and members of the board) agrees to the code of conduct. * The promisee (employees) relied on that when they made their decition to work at google and enter the contract. That was reasonably foreseeable by the promissor (Google). * The employees actually did rely on the promise when they took the job, and circulated the petition to not be evil, since they were promised all employees agreed to it. No comment on the specific performance remedy since I didn't read that far to see if that's what they're demanding. Obviously there's points in there that could be reasonably debated, but it seems not-crazy enough to make it past a motion to dismiss.

mountainb 5y ago
You're talking about the promissory part, but not the estoppel part. Estoppel is the court's action to intervene to prevent the defendant from evading its obligation. It has to be a valid promise that the defendants relied on to get the court to take the action of estoppel. If something seems like a dumb case mostly designed to enrich the plaintiff attorney on the face of it, it most likely is a dumb case mostly intended to enrich the plaintiff attorney. "Don't be evil" falls pretty neatly under the definition of an illusory promise because it is "indefinite or vague." Under the Restatement (Second) of Contracts: "Illusory promises; mere statements of intention. Words of promise which by their terms make performance entirely optional with the “promisor” whatever may happen, or whatever course of conduct in other respects he may pursue, do not constitute a promise." The fact that the plaintiff attorney did not mention the concept of an illusory promise does not bode well for its chances, because the judge will certainly bring it up, and the defense will also certainly bring it up. This should have been addressed directly, since it is the most obvious defense to this claim. There are other defenses as well that were not brought up and addressed, such as that the nonsense claims related to media articles had any bearing whatsoever on any alleged breach of contract. Notwithstanding this, "Don't Be Evil" should have never been in any official code of conduct; it should have stayed in the realm of puffery to avoid exactly this type of problem. This is why everyone hates lawyers and other assorted 'fun police' personalities. This was a lazily written complaint that did not really get into the important nitty gritty of why these particular employees were injured. Further, maybe this is one of those California things that lets you get out of arbitration, but these employees are almost certainly bound by an arbitration agreement. Not mentioning why you get to dodge the forced arbitration clause in your contract in the complaint is annoying to the court and will also make it less likely to survive the obvious motion to dismiss due to the binding arbitration requirement.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Yeah, that all seems reasonable.
- Talanes 5y ago
  >Further, maybe this is one of those California things that lets you get out of arbitration Probably this? https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB51 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

AlbertCory 5y ago

> Sounds like the lawyer is taking them for a ride on their dime, imo. Assuming she's not on contingency, or getting paid by some external group.