Slashdot Mirror
Google May Be In Trouble For Firing James Damore (inc.com)
Google fired engineer James Damore after he wrote a 10-page document about "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber." taustin writes from a report via Inc. about the potential legal trouble the company may face from firing the "anti-diversity" engineer: Whether Demore is right or wrong, whether one agrees with him or not, Google may have legal trouble for firing him. Employees are protected by federal law when they discuss working conditions with other employees (and this was an internal memo). His memo could be considered whistleblowing, which is also protected (and it is very clear that he was fired as retribution). And, in California, political opinions are protected in the work place as well. Just because one side is wrong doesn't mean the other side is right.
California is a Right to Work state, so they don't really need a reason to fire him.
There's a big difference between firing someone without a good reason, vs. firing someone for an illegal reason. There are plenty of examples for the latter: you can't fire someone because they got pregnant, or reached a certain age, etc. Not saying that's the case here, but if someone can show that the reason for their termination was illegal (e.g. an internal management memo or meeting notes discussing "we need to get rid of all these old people!") then yes, they most certainly can sue for wrongful termination.
discrimination - the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
No where does it say you have to be a minority to be discriminated against.
That a certain group forms the majority does not mean it cannot be discriminated against.
The most recent well-known example of this situation is South Africa when it was under Apartheid rule. I'm sure there are plenty of other instances.
State of California.
It is illegal to prevent workers from discussing work conditions.
It is illegal to discriminate based on political opinions.
it is illegal to implement affirmative action.
Welcome to California, Google. Did you have a look at the States laws before you gave your diversity monster power?
"His name was James Damore."
California has also clear laws regarding unlawful employment discrimination. Writing a memo pushing forward the agenda that diversity policies in the workplace is a bad idea will not fly well in courts.
Since 1996 the State supreme court has repeatedly upheld that affirmative action in the State is illegal in any institution that works for or with the State on any matter.
"His name was James Damore."
The whole screed...
Scientist after scientist are coming forward saying that his paper is well thought out, well researched, well written, and in line with current scientific understanding.
...read like a child who was upset that things weren't the way he thought they were all along
No, thats you guys, who keep lying about whats in the paper, and keep slandering the person that wrote it.
I wonder if Slashdot's poster logs can be subpoenaed to show that all you anonymous people are working for Google on Googles behalf slandering the person you wrongfully terminated. Pretty sure that "I was just following orders" is not a defense against slander.
"His name was James Damore."
Nowhere did he say they were "less suited". That's just you putting words in the authors mouth. He's talking about distributions of populations, not individuals. He's also talking about how men and women have natural inclinations, i.e. they value some fields more than others because of the different ways in which men and women think ON AVERAGE.
Try actually reading the damn thing before spouting off talking points.
Discrimination against individuals is also illegal. The discriminated trait being a majority or not is irrelevant.
but going so far as to assert the hypothesis that women were biologically not suited for the work crossed a line.
You really need to read it again. He never brings of the topic of suitability. His section about biological differences only discusses why genders tend to choose certain professions.
But didn't he also argue that an entire group of his coworkers had inherently less potential than other groups simply based on their gender?
No.
Any other questions? Maybe instead of asking whats in it, you should read it. Maybe instead of pretending to be an expert on whats in it, you should read it first.
"His name was James Damore."
> You don't send manifestos to the whole company
He didn't. He wrote it on an internal Google+ page. People had to seek it out to read it.
> (He has a Ph D from Harvard)
Incorrect. He lied on his linkedin profile, he only has a masters degree.
James Damore, the fired Google engineer who wrote the now-infamous memo on diversity at the company, has removed mention of PhD studies in biology from his LinkedIn profile.
The removal comes after Wired writer Nitasha Tiku confirmed with Harvard that Damore has not completed his PhD. Damore did complete a master's degree in systems biology in 2013, Harvard told Wired.
Damore's biology studies became a crux of a right-wing argument that he had credibility in claiming biological differences between men and women could account for lacking gender diversity at Google.
http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-removes-phd-studies-linkedin-2017-8
Harvard confirmed that he does NOT have a PhD. He has a Masters and he CLAIMS he has a PhD.
Harvard confirmed that he does NOT have a PhD. He has a Masters and he CLAIMS he has a PhD.
Nope. He claimed to have been a PhD student for three years, which is right. Then he took a masters.
He wasn't an alt-rightist. He self-identified as a "classical liberal" in the document, which I doubt you bothered to read. If you had read it, you might know that he also didn't propose any sexist stereotypes in it, despite what the media has been breathlessly reporting.
... all of the mainstream media reports are summarizing his argument as "not biologically fit" for tech roles.
So the mainstream media are liars, especially in the US. Also water is wet.
If this is a new understanding to you (or to anyone), let me be the first to welcome you into the realm of light -- where we see what's around us and think for ourselves rather than closing our eyes and listening to propaganda.
Nowhere in the paper is he stating that.
(he spends way to many pages on pointing out the difference between males and females, stating the obvious)
his complaint is about google ignoring reality and giving minorities better treatment because google thinks forced diversity is best.
it's like out of 10 job applicants picking the 1 woman because you need a woman for diversity reasons.
thats the discussion
going so far as to assert the hypothesis that women were biologically not suited for the work crossed a line.
No, he neither asserted nor hypothesized that claim. I've seen that claim incorrectly repeated as people have tried to shove those words in his mouth, but what he actually said was that, speaking in generalities, different genders are biologically predisposed to different traits. He never said that those differences make a given gender unsuitable for a job, nor that they make any particular person unsuitable. Far from it, in fact, as he made it clear that he believes there's a great deal of overlap between the genders when it comes to those traits, and as such he called for assessing people as the individuals they are, regardless of gender.
He did however say that those predispositions are at least in part responsible for why we see gender imbalances in various industries. He also put forward several other causes that are partially responsible for the gender imbalances within any given industry, including cultural pressure to conform to stereotypes, discrimination (which he admits is a problem), and (the topic he spent a lot of time addressing) a lowering of standards as a sort of affirmative action/reverse discrimination.
As best I can figure, the people incorrectly parroting what you said are failing to understand the distinction between:
A) Saying some people are unsuited because of their biology
B) Saying some people who were unqualified for other reasons were allowed in because of their biology
He never said (A), whether explicitly or implicitly, but he strongly implied (B) when he said that he had personally seen Google engage in illegal hiring practices by lowering the bar for people from various minorities, and he called for Google to end that practice while embracing a common bar against which to judge all job candidates.
Now, I certainly don't agree with everything he said, nor do I agree with the way he said some of the things that I happen to agree with, nor do I think he did a great job of citing all of his claims (e.g. what the hell was up with his footnote about Marxists?), but if you're going to disagree with him, don't use straw men arguments. Attack the things that he actually said, rather than whatever you read via a secondhand source, which it's quite clear is where you got your information, given that he actually did cite research to back up most of his scientific claims. The whole thing only takes a few minutes to read, even with the tables, footnotes, and citations that were left out of the incomplete copies that a lot of the early knee-jerk reactions were in response to.
He does not claim to have a PhD. Please stay on the facts, however much you are frothing at the mouth.
JFC, how did you get +5 for such a blatant lie?
We really do live in a post-truth era. You are everything you accuse the GP of being.
The guy literally listed "PhD, Systems Biology" on his linkedin profile (and did not list a masters degree).
You misinterpret "PhD, Systems Biology". It usually means the process of obtaining one. To actually finish said process is referred to as "received a PhD in" or "was awarded a PhD in". I admit that for the uninitiated it can sound either way.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.