5 ms·

I wonder why “Black” employees were asked to be excluded from the lawsuit before Google agreed to settle.

dvngnt_ 2y ago
? https://www.statista.com/statistics/311810/google-employee-ethnicity-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/311810/google-employee-e... shows 5 percent black people. not a huge amount
- bitshiftfaced 2y ago
  Same as the background rate: https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/software-engineer/demographics/ https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/software-engineer/dem...
  - wongarsu 2y ago
    By the same numbers "Latinx+" are actually over-represented at Google and white people underrepresented. Neither by a large amount though. With how close the numbers actually are I wonder if the different biases of different HR people and hiring managers actually cancelled out pretty well.
    - ceejayoz 2y ago
      > By the same numbers "Latinx+" are actually over-represented at Google… That's probably the case for much of California, where they're HQed.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - dekhn 2y ago
        Google's HQ is in Northern California.
        ceejayoz 2y ago
        Corrected, thanks.
    - dietr1ch 2y ago
      Side rant. Cut the Latinx crap please, Latinos don't really feel represented by the force-fed "inclusive" name that straight up goes against their gendered languages. It's overriding the language to seem more inclusive in English
      - thephyber 2y ago
        Quit policing other people’s speech, please.
        lupusreal 2y ago
        Lead by example.
        thephyber 2y ago
        My comment was pointing out the hypocrisy of the parent. I don’t use LatinX, but I don’t think it changes anything and it doesn’t bother me that other people do.
        dietr1ch 2y ago
        > I don’t use LatinX, but I don’t think it changes anything and it doesn’t bother me that other people do. Surely it doesn't change anything for you, but I'm not complaining because absolutely no one got mad, people were furious, but unsure how to get angry at the Diversity stuff without getting cancelled.
      - ben_w 2y ago
        On the one hand, this is linguistically correct… if we were speaking Spanish. As we're not actually using real Spanish, such criticisms feel to me like objecting to the way Star Trek dares to boldly split infinitives that have never been split before on the basis that Latin (the language) didn't split them — Latin couldn't split infinitives because infinitives in Latin are single words, just as the -x suffix to denote -[o/a in this case but way more complex when you get to all the other gendered suffixes] doesn't make sense in Spanish. (And now I'm wondering if anyone says "una hombra" and "un mujero" for trans people…) This is mainly a comment about English speakers borrowing the word as an exonym, my grasp of the Spanish language itself is "tourist" at best.
add-sub-mul-div 2y ago
I wondered that too. Maybe the data presented by the plaintiffs showed that they were less egregiously or obviously affected?
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  No, it simultaneously bolstered the case while being covered by a different settlement lol
hnuser123456 2y ago
It appears to be because the person who filed the suit was mostly concerned with oppression of people of "Hispanic, Latino, Indigenous, Native American and other minority backgrounds."
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  Well, squeeky wheel gets the oil. The bigger issue really is that Google should start reviews of a lot of managerial decisions in this regard. If you've got courts agreeing with plaintiffs, then these people you've been hiring are pursuing their, um, "preferences", a little bit too openly. You have to take things back in hand.
  - SR2Z 2y ago
    The court did not agree with the plaintiffs - this case was settled outside of court.
    - qingcharles 2y ago
      I'm guessing the court made no statement either way if there was a settlement? A civil court's job in the USA is to try every possible means to help both sides to reach a settlement (or other disposition) without trial. Trial is an extraordinary remedy.
      - fallingknife 2y ago
        A court will never make a statement favoring either side in a settlement. A settlement means the case never went to trial, and therefore, the sides never presented their cases in full to the court, so such a statement would be completely out of line. In my brief experience with litigation the only role the court has in helping both sides achieve a settlement is forcing the litigants to go through endless and expensive procedure until they both realize it's not worth it. Before trial, the court does little to indicate to you that it even knows you exist.
        2y ago
zerocrates 2y ago
In general, Google objected to the broadness of the class, which on initial filing covered all non-White employees. Specifically in regard to Black employees, they pointed out that some of the evidence presented suggested that Black employees actually earned less even than Latino and indigenous employees, so they might actually have opposing interests. There was also reference made to a different class action (Curley v. Google, in federal court) that would cover Black employees instead. This got down to a pretty low level of details, not only specifically cutting the class down to "Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and/or Alaska Native" employees but also explicitly excluding anyone in any of those groups who identified as Black.

? https://www.statista.com/statistics/311810/google-employee-ethnicity-us/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/311810/google-employee-e... shows 5 percent black people. not a huge amount

bitshiftfaced 2y ago
Same as the background rate: https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/software-engineer/demographics/ https://www.careerexplorer.com/careers/software-engineer/dem...
- wongarsu 2y ago
  By the same numbers "Latinx+" are actually over-represented at Google and white people underrepresented. Neither by a large amount though. With how close the numbers actually are I wonder if the different biases of different HR people and hiring managers actually cancelled out pretty well.
  - ceejayoz 2y ago
    > By the same numbers "Latinx+" are actually over-represented at Google… That's probably the case for much of California, where they're HQed.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - dekhn 2y ago
      Google's HQ is in Northern California.
      - ceejayoz 2y ago
        Corrected, thanks.
  - dietr1ch 2y ago
    Side rant. Cut the Latinx crap please, Latinos don't really feel represented by the force-fed "inclusive" name that straight up goes against their gendered languages. It's overriding the language to seem more inclusive in English
    - thephyber 2y ago
      Quit policing other people’s speech, please.
      - lupusreal 2y ago
        Lead by example.
        thephyber 2y ago
        My comment was pointing out the hypocrisy of the parent. I don’t use LatinX, but I don’t think it changes anything and it doesn’t bother me that other people do.
        dietr1ch 2y ago
        > I don’t use LatinX, but I don’t think it changes anything and it doesn’t bother me that other people do. Surely it doesn't change anything for you, but I'm not complaining because absolutely no one got mad, people were furious, but unsure how to get angry at the Diversity stuff without getting cancelled.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      On the one hand, this is linguistically correct… if we were speaking Spanish. As we're not actually using real Spanish, such criticisms feel to me like objecting to the way Star Trek dares to boldly split infinitives that have never been split before on the basis that Latin (the language) didn't split them — Latin couldn't split infinitives because infinitives in Latin are single words, just as the -x suffix to denote -[o/a in this case but way more complex when you get to all the other gendered suffixes] doesn't make sense in Spanish. (And now I'm wondering if anyone says "una hombra" and "un mujero" for trans people…) This is mainly a comment about English speakers borrowing the word as an exonym, my grasp of the Spanish language itself is "tourist" at best.

add-sub-mul-div 2y ago

I wondered that too. Maybe the data presented by the plaintiffs showed that they were less egregiously or obviously affected?

yieldcrv 2y ago
No, it simultaneously bolstered the case while being covered by a different settlement lol

hnuser123456 2y ago

It appears to be because the person who filed the suit was mostly concerned with oppression of people of "Hispanic, Latino, Indigenous, Native American and other minority backgrounds."

bilbo0s 2y ago
Well, squeeky wheel gets the oil. The bigger issue really is that Google should start reviews of a lot of managerial decisions in this regard. If you've got courts agreeing with plaintiffs, then these people you've been hiring are pursuing their, um, "preferences", a little bit too openly. You have to take things back in hand.
- SR2Z 2y ago
  The court did not agree with the plaintiffs - this case was settled outside of court.
  - qingcharles 2y ago
    I'm guessing the court made no statement either way if there was a settlement? A civil court's job in the USA is to try every possible means to help both sides to reach a settlement (or other disposition) without trial. Trial is an extraordinary remedy.
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      A court will never make a statement favoring either side in a settlement. A settlement means the case never went to trial, and therefore, the sides never presented their cases in full to the court, so such a statement would be completely out of line. In my brief experience with litigation the only role the court has in helping both sides achieve a settlement is forcing the litigants to go through endless and expensive procedure until they both realize it's not worth it. Before trial, the court does little to indicate to you that it even knows you exist.
      - 2y ago

zerocrates 2y ago

In general, Google objected to the broadness of the class, which on initial filing covered all non-White employees. Specifically in regard to Black employees, they pointed out that some of the evidence presented suggested that Black employees actually earned less even than Latino and indigenous employees, so they might actually have opposing interests. There was also reference made to a different class action (Curley v. Google, in federal court) that would cover Black employees instead. This got down to a pretty low level of details, not only specifically cutting the class down to "Hispanic, Latinx, Indigenous, Native American, American Indian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, and/or Alaska Native" employees but also explicitly excluding anyone in any of those groups who identified as Black.