Slashdot Mirror
Newspaper Obtains James Damore's Complaint Against Google (siliconbeat.com)
A Silicon Valley newspaper brings this update on fired Google engineer James Damore:
California law allows employers to fire workers for virtually any reason -- and the Constitutional protection of free speech doesn't apply to private company workplaces. Until now it was unclear how Damore might fight back against Google over his termination. Now, this news organization has obtained the U.S. National Labor Relations Board charge sheet that reveals the basis for Damore's battle. His argument hinges on the contents of his memo, which went far beyond discussing a possible biological reason for the gender gap.
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
The document contained detailed criticism of Google's diversity initiatives and their effects on employees, and it said that the company's biases led to alienation among employees holding conservative views. His Labor Board charge rests on Section 8(a) subsection (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, which gives employees the right to engage in activities for the purpose of "mutual aid or protection." Google discriminated against Damore by firing him "in retaliation" for activities protected by law, and also possibly to discourage such activities within the company, the charge sheet said. It appears clear that the protected activities Damore refers to are his communications, in the memo, with co-workers, about issues in the workplace.
Google was unavailable for comment, but the newspaper quoted an earlier statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai that "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace that doesn't mean that anything goes."
You do realize that federal law explicitly grants workers the right to bring up discriminatory practices in the workplace, and therefore telling a person [to stop] who brings it up is a federal law violation? And retaliating against them for bringing it up, or not dropping it, is also a violation? You realize that, right?
They didn't retaliate against him for bringing it up.
Umm, yes they did.
What happened is he didn't like his manager[']s answer and created a hostile workplace environment (something which they are 100% entitled to act on) by posting his opinions to the entire company.
He posted it to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues about inclusion, not to the entire company. It was then forwarded by someone else who objected to his memo. So, posting a concern about inclusion to an internal mailing list dedicated to discussing issues of inclusion is now deemed creating a hostile working environment? Interesting theory you have there.
Now of course you can argue back and forth as to whether you think he's right and whether or not that did create a hostile workplace environment. But that doesn't make your interpretation of the law one I think is correct.
And sooner or later we'll get a definitive answer on this unless google settles which I doubt they will.
If you mean if a decision is made by a court, that will only address whether Google's actions in this case violated the law, not whether the interpretation I cited is correct. BTW, go do some research and you may find the law journals I pulled it from. Also, I doubt it will reach a trial since Google will make it go away before that point is reached.