Slashdot Mirror
Former Google Employee Files Lawsuit Alleging the Company Fired Him Over Pro-Diversity Posts (theverge.com)
According to court documents filed today, a former Google engineer is suing the company for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination. "Tim Chevalier, a software developer and former site-reliability engineer at Google, claims that Google fired him when he responded with internal posts and memes to racist and sexist encounters within the company and the general response to the now-infamous James Damore memo," reports The Verge. From the report: Chevalier said in a statement to The Verge, "It is a cruel irony that Google attempted to justify firing me by claiming that my social networking posts showed bias against my harassers." Chevalier, who is also disabled and transgender, alleges that his internal posts that defended women of color and marginalized people led directly to his termination in November 2017. He had worked at Google for a little under two years. Notably, Chevalier's posts had been quoted in Damore's lawsuit against Google -- in which Damore sued the company for discrimination against conservative white men -- as evidence Google permitted liberals to speak out at the company unpunished. Chevalier's lawsuit alleges that his firing is, in fact, a form of punishment. The lawsuit was filed in San Francisco County Superior Court and Chevalier is seeking damages for lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, and injunctive relief against those alleged harmful acts. Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
And not just the internal day-to-day nonsense?
Regardless of you gender, race, beliefs, whatever, there are some unspoken but very obvious rules about what you say and don't say on company time. Especially in written form. But apparently some people didn't get the memo..
Do they do any real work at Google anymore or just write weird memos about social justice all day?
I imagine that argument goes well with the #MeToo campaign.
It seems that Google is attempting to establish some kind of 'even-handed' approach. The company remains overwhelmingly liberal, but it seem they're cutting the edges off for provocative discussion. The most radical 10% liberals are edged out but still 50% -> 100% on the conservative scale are edged out leaving only the most centrist conservatives as 'last ones standing'.
Google has a right to cultivate their own corporate culter, you can't tell a private company how to run its business. I'm just enjoying the view into the fishbowl here, and seeing a mini culture war.
I don't read AC
In my opinion, if you are openly contributing to a toxic work environment, you deserve to be fired.
This applies to conservatives or this person.
I think the main issue here is that Google doesn't want people arguing this stuff on company time instead of working. Fighting against social ills like sexism and discrimination is a noble cause, but if employees are spending half their time doing so instead of working, the company will suffer.
Better to rid of toxic people on both sides than to allow them to rile up others and cause big social problems within the company. A lot of times a group of people will work quite well as a team until politics is brought up, then it's practically World War Three.
Just quickly post some things like these. Not saying this is what happened here, but seems to be a flaw in the system.
It is also quite possible the actual problem here is these companies having styled themselves too much as a "home" and "welcoming place" in order to attract talented people (and have them work long hours uncompensated) and people working there are less and less aware that it is a place of work. You know, one of those places were you keep politics out and are expected to behave professionally all the time ...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
FTFA:
"A Google employee allegedly responded to the post by noting that asking for ID was just part of the job, Gizmodo reported. Chevalier then made a privilege-denying dude meme using Google’s internal meme generator with the caption, “I have opinions about forms of oppression that don’t affect me.” "
Google has an internal meme generator. I'm sure it provides hours of laughter and cohesive working.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
this is getting magnified by two thing:
a). It's click bait. I predict 300+ comments on this post if not more.
b). These lawsuits are being funded by the Republican party. This is a major political issue for the Republican party. It's part of a larger narrative they're building that white males are under assault.
Now, the fact is white males are... by declining wages due to outsourcing, H1-Bs, economic crashes caused by widespread deregulation, vulture capital firms killing off their jobs, etc, etc); but they're no more so than any other member of the working class. It's basically the right wing version of identity politics. Something to distract from the broader issues and keep the various groups of working class people at each other's throats. A caste system.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
This is just the opposite end of the spectrum from James Damore.
Maybe if you're looking at it as the irrational bigotry in this chick's rants being the polar opposite of the kind of rational, nuanced case put forward by Danmore. But if you're talking about politics and particular stances, then no, there's no "opposite spectrum" to a centrist.
I'm constantly being harassed because I'm a transgendered lesbian person of no-color - although I identify as Asian. People just assume that because I look like a white man and act like a heterosexual man, that I'm white heterosexual guy. When I tell them that my wife is a transgendered homosexual man of no-color but identifies as Black and that I'm in a non-traditional marriage, folks don't take me seriously. I get thrown out of LGBTQ groups and made fun of. Just because she has a vagina and breasts and can get pregnant doesn't mean he is a woman. And just because I can get erections doesn't mean I'm a man.
People really need to stop this bigotry.
One might think the unwanted attention from outsider interlopers has forced Google's hand and they're quietly trying to clean house. Then again, one George Wallace and one Bull Connor and for two generations most of America has been assuming automatically all white Southerners are racist to the bone. So maybe Google doesn't get out from under this one for a good long while either.
Chevalier’s supervisors were critical of Chevalier’s political participation and dismissive of his attempts to change Google’s culture. Ultimately, Google fired Chevalier. Human Resources explicitly told Chevalier that Google was ending his employment because of his political statements in opposition to the discrimination, harassment, and white supremacy he saw being expressed on Google’s internal messaging systems
The proper recourse for harassment is to report it to HR and let the company deal with it -- you don't get free reign to try to change the company's culture yourself. If the company doesn't deal with it, *then* you sue the company.
It's almost like Google doesn't have a consistent bias that conforms with anyone's narrative!
Oh dear.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Who'da thunk that in that beautiful valley was toxicity.
The only reason why they ever created the term "cisgender" is because they simply cannot bring themselves to call it what it really is: normal.
Admitting this through word choice would remove much of the wind from their proverbial sails.
Any large organization falls apart if professionalism isn't maintained to some degree (see current White House). Groups of people don't work together well with lots of emotional outbursts from its members. This is pretty consistent across most cultures. If somebody can't keep their shit together at work, then they gotta go. It's as simple as that.
I don't respond to AC's.
PopeRatzo is more than a single individual. He is an idea. You can think of him as the Nicolas Bourbaki of Slashdot commenters.
I appreciate that, but the answer is still no, I won't have sex with you.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I think it will, because not only were some of the exhibits in Damore/Gudeman's suit from Chevalier (e.g. page 21, then Exhibits B 16, 26, 40, 44, 46, 83 and 86) but it looks like Chevalier was sacked before the Damore/Gudeman suit was filed.
Can't imagine why he'd be fired. https://pics.me.me/nd-punch-al...
On the contrary, I think it will strengthen Damore's case, because Google has tacitly agreed that there has been unacceptable behavior from the so-called "diversity" camp. In which case, firing Damore shows even less justifiable bias against his position.
Anonymous for obvious reasons.
I reported Tim to HR several times. Good to see that the system works.
Tim posted a lot. A lot. Pretty much all of was abuse.
I never saw any good faith pro diversity posts from him, so the article is wrong in that regard.
Instead, his usual posting style consists of jumping into a discussion and start hurling serious abuse and personal attacks against whomever he thought was in the wrong.
He regularly calls other work colleagues Nazi, Racist, Rapist. Relentlessly and over and over.
He is very toxic and abusive. Shame it took this long to get rid of him.
I don't think his lawyers really know what kind of stuff Tim was writing when at Google. If they did they would know that this whole "fired for being pro diversity" angle will crash and burn almost immediately once Google starts showing what really happened.
> 'Normal' may well have literal and specific meaning, but in common usage there's an implied positive value in 'normal and a negative one in not.
Yes, there is, and that implied value is attached to the meaning, not the word. This is why we migrate to ever newer words to avoid causing offence, yet land right back where we started.
Inventing new words is fine (stupid, but fine). It's when they unilaterally redefine old words to mean something completely different than they have for centuries that gets annoying.
Since the dawn of humanity "What sex/gender are you?" has meant "Do or don't you have a dick/Y-chromosome?", not "Which of two (or several dozen) sets of perceived societal stereotypes do you and/or your 'headmates' feel most in conformance with today?".
I don't fucking care, I just want to know if you have a vagina or not. Though if you're having problems answering that question chances are I'm not interested one way or the other anyway.
yes, he was born with a vagina.
You have an issue with that, it's your problem, not his.
I'm pretty sure that her being born with a vagina and then developing the belief that she's a man is an issue for her, and nobody else. It certainly isn't an issue for the court to examine, so wtf is it doing as part of the lawsuit?
It was Google who created the toxic work environment. The company allowed and even encouraged political activism. But Google chose one side to support and fired anyone who didn't agree with their political platform. Goggle might as well introduce religion into the work environment and chose only one denomination to support and fire anyone who doesn't agree.
I wonder how low Google has set the bar when evaluating and hiring employees in order to meet their diversity quotas? Oh and in the real world who gives a flying fuck bout diversity in the workplace? The only real concern is obtaining the job you want. After you are hired you may be able to spend a few minutes worrying about the inequities in life.
Are we sure this isn't the one who sexually identifies as an ornate building? Maybe its schizophrenia triggered a psychotic episode that necessitated its dismissal, then it sued for discrimination because of course it did.
It's at-will employment.
"At-will" means you can be fired for ALMOST any reason, or for no reason. But even with "at-will" there is are reasons that cannot be used to fire someone. For instance, you cannot fire someone for belonging to a protected class. California has state restrictions in addition to the federal restrictions. The city of Mountain View may add even more.
How the hell do you "identify" as disabled. You either are able-bodied or you aren't.
There can be literally hundreds of objective measures of physical performance that can screen for physical infirmity. Some of them are even codified into laws and regulations, like what criteria you have to meet to get a handicap placard for your car or whether you're capable of operating a motor vehicle at all.
This phrasing is retarded. And while I'm at it...what the hell is 'queer' exactly?
"Get back to work" and "it's not about your feelings" from a hardcore Leftist. Gosh, funny how things do a complete 180 when it's someone whose points you don't want to listen to.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
You're here to work for a living, not make spectacles of yourself.
Google tried making specacles for other people, and that didn't work out very well. So, the only choice left is to make them for themselves.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm confused... Do gay people have a different way of speaking? Are transmen inherently different from men? Is this upper-middle class white man having trouble with the appropriate workplace speech of upper-middle class white men?
For example, I have ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
Yes, but as you said: you have it. You don't identify with it.
bickerdyke
Yeah, I boggled at identifying as disabled. But just to clarify, he's claiming mental disabilities not physical ones. PTSD and some other thing that I forget and can't be arsed re-reading the suit to find out.
Erm. That's kind of normal.
Cutting off your dick and pretending to be a woman is not normal, is not positive, is very negative.
Cutting off your tits, getting a fake cock sewn on and pretending to be a man is not normal, is not positive, is very negative.
Those are mentally ill people in need of serious psychiatric assistance. Nit normal. Sick.
Discrimination on the grounds of gender is illegal in most places. Gender disphoria is a recognized medical condition.
Saying things like "developing the belief that she's a man" could be used as evidence of a hostile workplace. If someone said something like that, he reported it and HR didn't take action, it strengthens his case. That's why it's part of the lawsuit.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I'll try not jacking it for a month, and report back here. If I seem a bit frustrated these next few weeks you will have to forgive me.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
They usually ask "do you have a disability?"
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Gender was a linguistic category (e.g., masc, fem, neut, common) until just a few years ago when some bozos thought 'twas cooler than the word "sex".
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
What is this girlfriend thing you speak of?
Gender disphoria is a recognized medical condition.
And they only stopped thinking of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1987 https://www.psychologytoday.co...
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
What if this is the....uh....guy....girl...whatever that leaked Damore's memo?
Google surely would love to get rid of such employee...
Gender disphoria is a recognized medical condition.
And they only stopped thinking of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1987 https://www.psychologytoday.co...
In body integrity identity disorder (BIID), people feel like their arms and legs should be amputated.
In the future where we can actually fix human brains, should medical treatment alter the brain to accept two arms and two legs, or should we chop off perfectly healthy and functional limbs because the brain is malformed and that's "the way the patient wants it"?
Well, for variable values of "advocating". Obviously these quotes are not to be taken literally. Still, if he made them within a work-context, that is pretty bad.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The difficulty is that you can fire someone for no reason, but they may be able to sue for wrongful dismissal if there is an underlying reason that you don't tell them.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I thought they changed it because they were tired of people writing "yes" under "Sex?".
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
...they only stopped thinking of homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1987...
That doesn't imply that it WAS a mental illness before 1987. (I don't think you were trying to imply that.) Historically, a lot of the treatment of gays has been terrible. Turing comes to mind. If some woman wants to live as a man, that's entirely up to her. I'll even use a person's preferred pronouns regardless of genitalia. Doesn't hurt me at all.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
...he's claiming mental disabilities not physical ones. PTSD...
I'm diagnosed with PTSD. You wouldn't believe the number of cases that appeared when it became a qualifying condition for buying cannabis. PTSD is a real thing and I feel for the people waking up screaming and all, but a whole lot of people just 'identify' as PTSD.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Gender dysphoria is even more so.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
In the future where we can actually fix human brains, should medical treatment alter the brain to accept two arms and two legs, or should we chop off perfectly healthy and functional limbs because the brain is malformed and that's "the way the patient wants it"?
Yup. They key to your statement is "the way the patient wants it". Why do you get to force them to do something they don't want to do? Your liberty ends where mine begins.
Mental health facilities confine people against their will when they a danger to themselves or others.
I would say that intent to chop off perfectly healthy limbs counts as a serious danger to self.
Note to everyone: If I ever start seriously talking about chopping off my limbs, please fucking confine me and fix my god damn brain. Do NOT let me chop off my limbs, no matter how much I think I want that at the time.
For example, I have ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
So do I tick the disabled box on the form?
If Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is considered a disability, yes you tick the box.
Someone with Epilepsy would say they have Epilepsy even though they aren't having a constant 24/7 seizure.
...so little time.
As near as I can tell, this is probably a direct result of Damore's lawsuit. That is, Google almost certainly had a third-party firm come in and independently evaluate every point of Damore's lawsuit. The firm then would have determined the relative likelihood of any of Damore's claims standing up in court. If Tim's postings were toxic enough, and especially if he had been reported to H.R. in the past and H.R. had a notable bias where straight white dudes were punished but non-cis / non-white / etc. people got a pass, then that would have been a major point where the independent firm would have stepped up and said "Yeah you suckers are gonna get railed, there's an overt bias here and that's not going to go over well in court, and we explicitly recommend terminating the worst offenders to reduce future liability". And then Tim gets canned and starts crying, because his expectation up to that point was that he had special privileges and he's not adjusting well to ACTUALLY being treated equally. I'm basing this off of having had to pressure my own work H.R. to call in an independent firm because they were letting a manager get away with overt retaliation against me, and they refused to admit there was a problem until the independent firm said "Yeah, no, there was definitely retaliation, and probably a hostile work environment because of the upper management condoning this behavior as well". Suddenly, the senior legal team was VERY interested and suddenly everyone was very concerned about employees being treated fairly.
He's not entirely wrong - after all, you did recognize the medical condition to which he was referring ...
So my point is that this clap trap about SJWs is a smoke screen promoted by the Republican party to distract white working class males from the real cause of their economic problems (to wit: Right Wing economic policies that destroy middle class jobs and wages while dividing the working class).
Your response to that point isn't to attack it on it's merits, but to say that my point is irrelevant because there might be a conspiracy by Google to fund lawsuits against themselves as a false flag operation to discredit further criticism of their diversity policies
Seriously, read what you wrote and think about the absurdity of it. Also, if you're going to attack my post do it by attacking the content of my post, not by engaging against random attacks on Google. I realize the latter is much, much easier (nobody likes Google right now because everybody hates SJWs), but you're not helping what should be your actual cause (e.g. helping white working class males address the issues confronting them).
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
"Queer" is a catchall term for anyone not cisgender and heterosexual. In place of the alphabet soup of "LGBTQQA+OMGWTFBBQ".
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
Do you equally object to "straight" or "heterosexual" being words?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
On the contrary, I think it will strengthen Damore's case, because Google has tacitly agreed that there has been unacceptable behavior from the so-called "diversity" camp. In which case, firing Damore shows even less justifiable bias against his position.
I think even the best lawyers are going to have a hard time convincing a judge that actions that display even-handedness on Google's part, is actually evidence of bias. However, if Google enters Chevalier's firing into evidence, which they likely will, I'm fairly certain that Damore's lawyers will try a similar argument. I just doubt that the judge will accept it as anything more than a desperate reach by a floundering lawyer.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Saying things like "developing the belief that she's a man" could be used as evidence of a hostile workplace. If someone said something like that, he reported it and HR didn't take action, it strengthens his case. That's why it's part of the lawsuit.
Her lawsuit doesn't make any such allegation, ergo her lack of a penis is not pertinent to the case. Besides which, it would take a special kind of gullible idiot to believe that Google - the bastion of "progressivism" - discriminates against trannies.
A more likely explanation is that she's used to being able to scream "I'm disabled and transgender!!!" to immediately end disagreement and receive deference from pretty much everyone around her. She's do used to it that she's fooled herself into believing that the legal system works the same way; just claim that you're transgendered and you automatically win.
She's about to get a nasty surprise.
"I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude."
Cut that out. I have a spelling disability.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
You either fuck pussy or you don’t, too. Obviously the ones who do are the straights right?
Even if those pussy-fuckers also suck cock? Still straight? You either fuck pussy or you don’t right? And they do, so...
And what about people who neither fuck nor suck? Gay because they don’t fuck pussy? Or straight because they don’t suck cock?
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
You asked a question on a website that was originally a safe space for Linux developers. What you just received was the normal level of assistance this guy is used to providing for people with questions.
ie.: He just told you "GO RTFM NOOB!!!" even though he knows there isn't one to read.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Actually, if you look at the number of people whose genitalia is any of my business, it's a very short list. Outside that list, I treat people according to how they act and want to be treated, which is not necessarily connected to genetic makeup and/or genitalia. I'm positive that some of my friends have vaginas, but it would seem rude to ask.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
As with most things dealing with gender, sex, and sexuality there are more layers than what you initially perceive. "Normal" for current western society is not "normal" for other societies throughout history. Moreover, there are innumberable instances of different "normals" on this planet right now. One could assume that because we are genetically similar to our predecessors and inhabitants of places where "normal" differs from here, but are not incorporating the same sexual proclivities and gender expressions in our definition of "normal" that the definition of "normal" is not a recognition of phenotype or genotype.
Without that fundamental basis to argue "normalcy" from, and with the wide range of observable variation from history and other places, one realizes very quickly that the definitions of "normal" are a result of the cultural and socio-sexual programming of an individual society. "Normal" is nothing more than a transmission of cultural norms and standards from your kin. They are a tautology, circularly arguing for their very existence through generational hearsay. "Normal" is, if anything, a fallacy.
Once you realize that "normal" is an organic product of collective thinking you might also realize that the definition is mutable. If you are really smart and like to categorize things, compare trends, and analyze data you might realize that the true "normal" is that human sexuality and gender expression exist not on a spectrum, but more like emission spectra, each one unique and scattered about the spectrum. It always has. That is the one thing that never changes.
Even more interesting to me is the changing nature of "normal." As homosexuality has become part of "normal" there have been some interesting side effects. I watched friends struggle for decades to be accepted by society as gay men, only to turn around and ostracize any gay man from their clique who admitted having sex with a woman. I saw the same behavior from lesbians who admitted sleeping with men. And I have seen both bisexuals and transsexuals ostracized by certain members of the gay community. I would have thought that people who fought so hard for acceptance for so long would certainly understand the terrible repercussions that follow from ostracism and torment of our fellow humans. Apparently this was not the case, and in some ways is still not the case.
If this behavior looks familiar to you you might be starting to get what I got. For those who presuppose "normal" it is two part. "Normal" encompasses acceptance by society on one hand, and scapegoating and oppression on the other. Once you are "normal" your admittance is predicated on keeping everyone else out, and rooting out and exposing those who are traitors and phonies.
Unfortunately, since human sexuality is not always a continuous function within each individual, you get people who are culturally forced into suppressing or hiding their true sexual and gender expression. Instead, they restrict themselves to expressing the mainstream flavors of "normal" sexuality and gender identity or they risk ostracism. Fortunately our cultural "normal" now encompasses more flavors than previous generations, and the repercussions of true self expression are generally less than they were.
Now, referring back to your position on the term "cisgender," I would put it in the same category as the words "straight, gay, lesbian, white, black, Asian..." It is merely an artificial construct designed to represent boundaries between normal and not-normal. They are the back of the hand of "normalcy," used for the enforcement side of those that presuppose the existence of "normal."
You may not see it as such, but from my perspective it's just more of the same thing that you humans do to each other. You require sacrifice from those that want to be seen as "normal." One must give up the parts of themselves that others might find objectionable in order to belong. Sadly, the result of joining is the further enforcement of separation, otherwise you face t
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
Why did Google fire Damore instead of Tim in August? Since later in November, Google agreed that Tim demonstrated disruptive behavior.
Calling this "desperate reach by a floundering lawyer" betrays your impartiality.
Why did Google fire Damore instead of Tim in August? Since later in November, Google agreed that Tim demonstrated disruptive behavior.
Probably because they fire people in the order of the size of the problem they are creating?
Calling this "desperate reach by a floundering lawyer" betrays your impartiality.
I don't claim to be impartial, and that's just what the argument looks like to me, a blatant attempt at spinning inconvenient facts.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Your use of the R word is, well, you know.