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.
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.
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.
My thoughts exactly. He doesn't deserve a cent over $3.4 billion.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
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.)
If he had sued for his actual damages (if there were, in fact, any) of more like $38,000, The Information, The Verge, and The /. wouldn't have run the story. He probably figured that the more plublicity, the more money he is likely to get and/or the more likely Google is to alter their policies. Doesn't seem so stupid to me.
Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading
RTFA, that's a headline madness. He is not suing for 3.8 Billion, he is suing for up to $14,600 per employee, per the law. Times 61000 employees, that's 3.8 billion total distributed among the employees. Makes perfect sense.
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?
Basically, the lawyer is suing on behalf of everyone. According to the lawsuit (paragraph 98 and 99)
98. Under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), the penalty for a violation of Labor Code S1102.5 is both $10,000 per violation and "one hundred dollars ($100) for each aggrieved employee per period for the initial violation and two hundred ($200) for each aggrieved employee per pay period for each subsequent violation."
99. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself, the state of California, and all of Google's aggrieved employees, PAGA penalties as set forth above for each employee per pay period within the statutory time frame,
So when you multiply that by 65K employees, that's about $3.8B (according to statutory laws). It took the law firm of Baker Curtis & Schwartz to come up with a lawsuit that "yuge"...
No, this is called Punitive Damages
At some level, you have to ask if "damages" are the only value of a lawsuit. If there's illegal behavior like this at a massive scale, the words "too big to fail" come to mind. There has to be a fine, even if that fine doesn't go to the plaintiff. Half of their quarterly profit would be nice, except the accountants would Hollywood the shit out of that.
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.
I don't know a lawyer that would take only 10%. Someone's looking to make it rain.
Sounds like he wants to get everyone the Christmas bonus Google decided to deny them this year.
Ho-Ho-Ho!
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...
It'll be more than that. Lawyers are most likely taking on this case without any payment from the plaintiffs. They are the ones risking millions and years of courts costs upfront for major payday down the line. Amount is that high not to limit plaintiffs damages themselves and to cover pessimistic amount of legal fees. Google's legal strategy could be to drag this case along the courts for a decade. Can you image how much legal bill that'll accrue? People always complain about bloodsucking lawyers but in cases like this they aren't the bad guys. They actually allow the little guys to fight back..
$640,000,000,000 ought to be enough for everybody!
Just because some don't doesn't mean you can't.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
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.
And the lawyers will get half of that, which is $1.9 billion, and the sole reason for this lawsuit.
I'm not sure I understand how it is illegal for a company to retain valuable information.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
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...
At some level, you have to ask if "damages" are the only value of a lawsuit. If there's illegal behavior like this at a massive scale, the words "too big to fail" come to mind. There has to be a fine, even if that fine doesn't go to the plaintiff. Half of their quarterly profit would be nice, except the accountants would Hollywood the shit out of that.
This nails the issue precisely.
You hear a lot of conservative rhetoric about government regulations and enforcers to the effect of "we don't need no stinkin' regulations or regulators, private lawsuits are perfectly capable of controlling corporate behavior". Well, this what private lawsuits to provide a check on corporate behavior looks like. Another private lawsuit option is of course a class action lawsuit, but strangely conservatives have been working hard to make those very difficult to file. Almost as if their talk about torte liability being a check on corporate behavior was pure hypocrisy.
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
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
I think you meant $640,000
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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...
The number is correct... I had to take into account inflation, ad-ware fees, ransom overhead, and larger software updates! ;)
What surprising to me is that somebody still believes that 'don't be evil' motto... Poor naive souls...
It'll be more than that. Lawyers are most likely taking on this case without any payment from the plaintiffs. They are the ones risking millions and years of courts costs upfront for major payday down the line. Amount is that high not to limit plaintiffs damages themselves and to cover pessimistic amount of legal fees. Google's legal strategy could be to drag this case along the courts for a decade. Can you image how much legal bill that'll accrue? People always complain about bloodsucking lawyers but in cases like this they aren't the bad guys. They actually allow the little guys to fight back..
Sure they are. Googles lawyers are bloodsuckers for abusing the system and being willing to use delay as a strategy, the plaintiffs lawyers are bloodsuckers for being willing to let that run up their fees, which they will get while plaintiffs get nothing. The entire legal profession are bloodsuckers for their nod nod wink wink attitude towards this.
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.
So assuming they win, one lawyer gets insanely rich and everyone else gets enough for cab fare home. Awesome. It's time to change how class action lawsuits work.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
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.
Conservatives haven't been working to make it difficult to file so much as difficult to get a disproportionately large award for small harms or from companies acting in good faith.
Actually, I believe the $14,600 number is incorrect and that he's actually suing for something like $62,400 per employee.
Notice that $14,600/employee * 61000 employees ~= $890m, which is a far cry short of $3.8b.
Reading the article, the claim is for $200 per pay period per employee per claim. There are 12 claims and if we assume biweekly paychecks, 26 pay periods. $200 * 12 * 26 = $62,400 per employee. $62,400/employee * 61000 employees ~= $3.8b, which suggests this math is correct. It's certainly possible that the number of pay periods is wrong, but using 24 pay periods for twice/month paychecks produces ~$3.5b which is shy of the mark.
I see... that is schizophrenia rampant. These guys do not understand it is no secret and it is no mystery world nor an alternate Universe. I think they signed some paper, right? There is also a distinction between bona fide and ill will, when propagating information. But what these people do want is to keep taking value away from Google, or decapitalizing it, which is NOT good for a company that is expected to continue into the future and some day be inherited. They must have a hidden agenda if willing to get such values off the place then keep working on it, but such is schizophrenia: take value out and away, disintegrate it till you reach zero...
This is why some EU legislation for abusive behaviour in companies sets fines at 10-15% of annual TURNOVER.
This idea being that fines can be inflicted which make the organism seriously flinch.
What's 10-15% of Google's turnover in XYZ country?
"Actually, I believe the $14,600 number is incorrect and that he's actually suing for something like $62,400 per employee."
Triple damages for wilful behaviour.
It's already difficult to file. By reducing the amount of damages, it becomes less worthwhile to go to the expense and trouble.
"Good faith" is a slippery concept. It's apparently possible for an organization required to do a good-faith effort to find recipients of money owed to miss, say, the University of Minnesota. Apparently a good-faith effort to find something doesn't include using a search engine or telephone book or common sense. I no longer believe in good-faith mistakes that favor the company.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The claim is that Google violated state law, and illegal provisions in contracts are void. Since the illegal actions benefited Google and hurt employees, the idea is to restore some sort of balance. The schizophrenia involved would appear to be the inability to distinguish between damages for illegal acts and plunder.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
They streamlined things for the modern world and dropped the first word of their motto.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
By "good faith" I mean people who are following the law as they understand it.
Sure. How do you tell the difference between people attempting to follow the law and people saying they attempted to follow the law? I understand what good faith means. I just don't believe in it as an excuse, because it's so often and easily abused.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes