3 ms·

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem Ambiguity in a contract benefits the party that did not d

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem Ambiguity in a contract benefits the party that did not draft it

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
I'm not a lawyer, but I will be shocked if this principle is sufficient to allow them to win this case. We'll see.
- pg_1234 5y ago
  Even if they don't win, in a public trial, given the current political attitude to Big Tech, this could cost Google billions just in the discovery process.
  - MagnumOpus 5y ago
    "Billions" is a very large number, even for elite coders or lawyers that's thousands of person years - or tens of thousands for mere mortals. Somehow I doubt that any company would assign ten thousand people for a civil suit discovery...
    - pg_1234 5y ago
      Not directly, but the reputational damage ... and the possibility that national governments might be emboldened to act against Google in tax or privacy domains could knock percentage points off the market cap.
tehwebguy 5y ago
Yeah but it's not really a contract, the code of conduct clearly doesn't obligate Google to do anything. It's just a list of basic rules & policies like every other company has, its purpose is to put a bunch of rules in writing and it is signed by new hires so that there's a documented acknowledgement of those policies. That is, a CoC is often the document used when firing someone but is rarely going to help someone keep their job. A company breaking or changing policy is not by definition unlawful or a violation of any employee's rights in the US. There are exceptions to this, but many people would be blown away at the massive leeway companies have (e.g. only ~20 states consider PTO "earned wages", other states have far lower or no PTO protections on termination). That said, their lawsuit isn't really about breach of contract, it's just one of the 5 counts they are trying to establish (the complaint is only 13 pages double spaced, totally worth skimming[0]): COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT - Plaintiffs say they were fired for following the CoC and calling out evil (working with DHS / CBP / ICE) that Google was doing or considering doing. COUNT II: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - They would have taken a job elsewhere if they knew "Don't be Evil" wasn't going to be honored and gave up opportunities for no reason since it wasn't. COUNT III: BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING - Basically the same as count 1 but focused on bad faith by changing the policy. COUNT IV SLANDER/FALSE LIGHT - Plaintiffs say Google slandered them by falsely saying they leaked confidential information. COUNT V: TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY - Plaintiffs say they were fired for exercising protected political action and/or for their membership of protected classes. In my opinion the DHS / CBP / ICE child separation policy is pure evil, so is a lot of the incarceration this country[1], but the lawsuit isn't going to come down to the definition of evil so much as it will come down to California employment law. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21119310-google_complaint_filed https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21119310-google_comp... [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jailed-for-a-crime-that-doesnt-exist https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jaile...
- hnfong 5y ago
  Presumably the employment contracts references the CoC, and is thus incorporated in the employment contract, so in theory the CoC could be interpreted under the same rules of contract law. 3 of the 5 counts hinges upon what "Don't be Evil" means, so it looks like (at least on the surface) a major point of contention. That said I do agree it's an uphill battle to try to get a court to seriously interpret "evil". It's a tautology at best, i.e. "don't do anything you shouldn't do".
q1w2 5y ago
Correct, HOWEVER, since these employees also broke other more explicit rules in the employee handbook, then the more specific rules will apply, not the incredibly-vague-obviously-not-a-carte-blanche-to-do-whatever-you-want clause.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_proferentem Ambiguity in a contract benefits the party that did not draft it

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

I'm not a lawyer, but I will be shocked if this principle is sufficient to allow them to win this case. We'll see.

pg_1234 5y ago
Even if they don't win, in a public trial, given the current political attitude to Big Tech, this could cost Google billions just in the discovery process.
- MagnumOpus 5y ago
  "Billions" is a very large number, even for elite coders or lawyers that's thousands of person years - or tens of thousands for mere mortals. Somehow I doubt that any company would assign ten thousand people for a civil suit discovery...
  - pg_1234 5y ago
    Not directly, but the reputational damage ... and the possibility that national governments might be emboldened to act against Google in tax or privacy domains could knock percentage points off the market cap.

tehwebguy 5y ago

Yeah but it's not really a contract, the code of conduct clearly doesn't obligate Google to do anything. It's just a list of basic rules & policies like every other company has, its purpose is to put a bunch of rules in writing and it is signed by new hires so that there's a documented acknowledgement of those policies. That is, a CoC is often the document used when firing someone but is rarely going to help someone keep their job. A company breaking or changing policy is not by definition unlawful or a violation of any employee's rights in the US. There are exceptions to this, but many people would be blown away at the massive leeway companies have (e.g. only ~20 states consider PTO "earned wages", other states have far lower or no PTO protections on termination). That said, their lawsuit isn't really about breach of contract, it's just one of the 5 counts they are trying to establish (the complaint is only 13 pages double spaced, totally worth skimming[0]): COUNT I: BREACH OF CONTRACT - Plaintiffs say they were fired for following the CoC and calling out evil (working with DHS / CBP / ICE) that Google was doing or considering doing. COUNT II: PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL - They would have taken a job elsewhere if they knew "Don't be Evil" wasn't going to be honored and gave up opportunities for no reason since it wasn't. COUNT III: BREACH OF IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING - Basically the same as count 1 but focused on bad faith by changing the policy. COUNT IV SLANDER/FALSE LIGHT - Plaintiffs say Google slandered them by falsely saying they leaked confidential information. COUNT V: TERMINATION IN VIOLATION OF PUBLIC POLICY - Plaintiffs say they were fired for exercising protected political action and/or for their membership of protected classes. In my opinion the DHS / CBP / ICE child separation policy is pure evil, so is a lot of the incarceration this country[1], but the lawsuit isn't going to come down to the definition of evil so much as it will come down to California employment law. [0] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21119310-google_complaint_filed https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21119310-google_comp... [1] https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jailed-for-a-crime-that-doesnt-exist https://www.propublica.org/article/black-children-were-jaile...

hnfong 5y ago
Presumably the employment contracts references the CoC, and is thus incorporated in the employment contract, so in theory the CoC could be interpreted under the same rules of contract law. 3 of the 5 counts hinges upon what "Don't be Evil" means, so it looks like (at least on the surface) a major point of contention. That said I do agree it's an uphill battle to try to get a court to seriously interpret "evil". It's a tautology at best, i.e. "don't do anything you shouldn't do".

q1w2 5y ago

Correct, HOWEVER, since these employees also broke other more explicit rules in the employee handbook, then the more specific rules will apply, not the incredibly-vague-obviously-not-a-carte-blanche-to-do-whatever-you-want clause.