Slashdot Mirror
Google Employee Sues For $3.8 Billion Over Confidentiality Policies (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A Google product manager has filed a lawsuit against the company for its confidentiality policies on the grounds they violate California labor laws. California labor laws give employees the right to discuss workplace issues with law enforcement, regulators, the media, and other employees. Google is accused of firing the employee for exercising his rights, then smearing his reputation in an internal email sent to the rest of the company. These policies are put in place to allegedly prevent the leaking of potentially damaging information to regulators or law enforcement. They in turn prohibit employees from speaking out about illegal activity within the company, even to its own lawyers, and encourage them to report other employees suspected of leaking information. The Verge has obtained a copy of the complaint, linked below in full. "Google's motto is 'don't be evil.' Google's illegal confidentiality agreements and policies fail this test," the lawsuit reads. One policy allegedly even prevents employees from writing a novel about working for a large Silicon Valley corporation -- like, for instance, Dave Eggers' dystopian novel, The Circle -- without first getting final draft approval from Google. The Information confirmed that this lawsuit was filed by the same individual, known in the suit only as "John Doe," who filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board earlier this year over many of the same confidentiality policies.
Maybe they did cause harm to this person. I don't know. But even so, there's no way they caused 3.8 billion dollars of harm. What is this idiot smoking?
6. You can make money without doing evil.
Can you?
They bought Keyhole from the CIA.
I don't believe their revenue stream or anything they boast about. I can't trust a company that isn't transparent. If they have something to hide then they are not on the right side of the law.
That's completely irrelevant to any matter of law; it's theatrics—which is what law really is all about: Theatre.
This is why society feels like shifty house of cards built atop a hill of sand. It's just people yelling nonsense at each other, and hoping that some stranger in a black trash bag (or wig, as the case may be) forms a favorable, personal opinion on the matter. What a joke.
Neither the summary nor the article give much information. My guess is that someone was fired for cause and is blaming everyone but him (or her) self.
$100 says they won't exist in 2020
thats the tip of the iceberg. If this gets overturned as illegal you will see other tech companies subjected to the same types of complaints and more importantly, a flood of potential information about the real shenanigans going on and the true level of privacy violations they commit in the course of business.
No one really wants the to illicitly gain access to these companies' metaphorical secret sauces recipies, we just want to make sure the ingredient list doesn't include rat poison.
Most large companies now have an ethics/goverance contact for exactly this reason: giving an employees an outlet to safely report shady stuff without recrimination, along with a mandatory annual ethics training video. If Google has something like this, they're probably OK and this is just a whiny employee. If not, well then, they will after this lawsuit. (Not getting sued by whistleblowers is largely a solved problem in corporate America: they report, get paid off, and life goes on after some non-public changes.)
I'm no google fan, but this is clearly just a shakedown. In cases like this, I believe the lawyer (not the plaintif) should be fined for being full of shit and trying to shake someone down, big company, small company, individual, doesn't matter.
Google needs to feel the pinch. If they sought $200K, it would be nothing for Google.
Personally, I think the State should take over these sort of cases. Dispense what's fair and keep the rest.
Maybe they did cause harm to this person. I don't know. But even so, there's no way they caused 3.8 billion dollars of harm. What is this idiot smoking?
It sure is getting everyone's attention, isn't it?
And maybe the next person who is ordered to sign a bunch of BS papers regarding confidentiality and whatnot.
See, if they just filed a suit, there would have - maybe - been an out of court settlement with another document saying that he'll keep his mouth shut for ever and ever and in the meantime, Google or whoever keeps on with these policies.
In my years I have signed too many of those fucking things - and they ALWAYS spring them on you AFTER you have turned in your notice and you have very little recourse to turn back.
And you know what? 99.99999% of the time they were unnecessary because they had lame-ass "technology" and were doing the same shit that everyone else does. But it made their egos feel good that their "groundbreaking" and "innovative" ideas won't be stolen.
I predict they will settle for $1.061 Billion. The lawyers will take $1 Billion and each employee will get a $100 gift card for the Google store.
$100 says they won't exist in 2020
They don't. They're called Alphabet now. Google is just their porn finder - I mean search engine.
Personally, I think the State should take over these sort of cases. Dispense what's fair and keep the rest.
Just like how we trusted the state with Civil Forfeiture? How did that turn out again? Oh right it was abused big time. How about we don't give them more tools to abuse.
Considering Google apparently made 75 Billion in profits last year, 3.8 Billion hardly seems all that "yuge" when taken into perspective.
Also I'm not sure what writing novels and all the rest is about, but the last time I heard about Google and confidentiality was all about unfair wages and employees sharing information about what they make with each other to get a better idea of how much money they should be making in relation to everyone else.
Seeing as the work produced by said employees profited almost 75 Billion, the lawsuit is for 3.8 Billion, and this is probably about employee wages, it doesn't seem all that unjustified. In fact, without having a valuation that large it would probably be hard to be taken seriously by corporate at all without being ignored or simply just spending who cares how much throwing lawyers at the problem. Even at 3.8 Billion, at almost 1.5B a week, Google could pay off that amount in just over 2 weeks...
I would normally agree, but if they fire you and then send out an email to everyone telling you how bad you were (and you feel that that's a lie), then that's crossing the line. The industry is pretty small, you're bound to run into many of those people again in later jobs, and the bad reputation of you they are creating can have a real impact down the road.
Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
Nobody owes you employment!
No, but if they do offer you employment, it has to be under the terms of the law.
Breakfast served all day!
Fair enough...that's pretty tacky. Not sure why any organization would send out a mass email about an employee. Unless he was involved in some malicious crap...
I would normally agree, but if they fire you and then send out an email to everyone telling you how bad you were (and you feel that that's a lie), then that's crossing the line. The industry is pretty small, you're bound to run into many of those people again in later jobs, and the bad reputation of you they are creating can have a real impact down the road.
Quite true. Smearing your professional reputation is actual damages. But also realize that personnel matters are legally confidential and sending out an at-large critique of the employee is a clear violation of employment law. Your employment file is not a black-mail dossier for the company to use as it sees fit. There should be heavy penalties for this, on top of considerable actual damages. Only a hit that noticeably dents the bottom line of a corporation will get its attention.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
Unless it didn't happen and the guy is making it up. He even admits in the filing that the email didn't identify him by name and some people just guessed it was him. Conveniently the guy doesn't include what action actually got him fired. Or what action allegedly got him fired whatever...
What surprising to me is that somebody still believes that 'don't be evil' motto... Poor naive souls...
I would totally mod you up if i could remember my login password. lol but anyway I see it the way you do .. No one said he had to work there. when he started there he probably signed a contract. legal or not if he signed a contract he can be fired for doing things the contract says he can't because he signed it he agreed to the rules written in it. If down the road he decides he doesn't like the rules he can quit and find a job else where. the US in general are way to sue happy its kind of crazy. It would be nice to see a judge tell a person who is obviously in the wrong that they are and idiot and because your and idiot and decided to waste everyone's time you can pay the person your suing lawyer fees also good bye. If more judges did this you would see a lot less stupid people suing over stupid things.. like I don't know spilling my hot coffee i just order in my lap and getting burned.. I swear its where it all started
There's a big difference between writing a book and contacting authorities. If I get fired for contacting the police/FBI/etc about a relevant matter, it's a lot different than getting fired for writing a tell-all book with what might contain company secrets.
Of course she's a witch! They wouldn't have accused her of being a witch unless she was involved in some malicious crap ...
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
More than just "crossing the line," that's about as close to a textbook definition of libel as one could imagine.
If the plantiff can prove the statement were false, I imagine the payout "should" be far more than $15k... The damages from this libel would be unemployment for however long due to a false bad reputation, and non-wages can add up really quickly.
Just unethical. Big difference!!
One is keeping your employees from talking about the company true or not and over-managing the employees rights to free speech. This is unethical.
The other would be like slicing the throats of all employee's children who don't toe the company line. This is evil.
Are we clear? I hate it when the line gets blurred.
That's not true at all. If it isn't legal, then it can't be enforced. That's a basic part of contract law.
You can't have it both ways, forcing individuals to follow the law when it comes to contracts by having them enforceable when it's convenient, while giving corporations carte blanche to ignore the law when it's convenient.
By choosing a legal contract, you choose to work within the framework of the law.
absolutely nothing