I question whether his hands would be tied. He would be accountable to the board, and whether or not it was fiducially responsible to accept the risk of exposi

I question whether his hands would be tied. He would be accountable to the board, and whether or not it was fiducially responsible to accept the risk of exposing Google to a civil suit would certainly be a topic for discussion. However, strategic decisions are within his purview. This is a endemic human resources issue that affects the well-being of the company. It would be entirely and justifiably within his discretionary power to react however he saw fit, unlike a more junior office holder who would have a specific job description, a clear set of powers and responsibility, and less political power within the organization. I am not arguing that speaking out would be the correct decision at this time. In fact, as angry as the incident may make him, it might well be counter-productive to address it directly. However, I am not sure that it would correct to say that his hands would be tied. I am speaking from reason rather than experience, and I have no real knowledge of Google's governing structure. I am adding this disclaimer because I am trying to kick the habit of seeming to know more than I do.