Google Reportedly Paid Andy Rubin $90 Million After He Allegedly Coerced Sex From Employee (theverge.com)

The New York Times has revealed new details on the circumstances that surrounded Andy Rubin's departure from Google in 2014. According to the report, Google "investigated sexual misconduct claims against Rubin, which revolved around an incident in which he allegedly coerced another Google employee into 'performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013,'" The Verge reports. "Despite reportedly finding the claims credible -- to the point that Page decided Rubin needed to go -- Google gave him a $90 million exit package. The last $2 million of that agreement will be paid out next month." From the report: Before that payout, and during the initial stages of its investigation in 2014, Google awarded Rubin "a stock grant worth $150 million." The move gave Rubin, at that time a highly-valued executive at the company, major financial incentive for sticking around after he'd moved on from Android to focus his efforts on a robotics unit. The Times says it's unclear whether Page or Google's leadership committee knew about the misconduct allegations when they approved that huge grant. But they certainly did when reaching the $90 million figure as Rubin headed out the door, and Page offered public praise for Rubin in announcing his departure. After he left, Google proceeded to invest in his VC, Playground Ventures. And the company even allowed him to delay paying back a $14 million loan it'd given him "to buy a beach estate in Japan." In a statement to the New York Times, Google said: "[W]e investigate and take action, including termination. In recent years, we've taken a particularly hard line on inappropriate conduct by people in positions of authority. We're working hard to keep improving how we handle this type of behavior."

UPDATE: Google CEO Sundar Pichai sent an email to employees Thursday in response to the report, saying 48 employees have been fired for sexual misconduct over the last two years.

Comments

Coerced?

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you mean by "coerced"? "Coerced" as in he forced an employee to give him a blowjob or "coerced" as in he convinced an employee to give him a blowjob? There is a huge difference between the two. If it's the latter definition, then there is no issue. Adults can do what they want.

Re:Coerced?

[shaitand]

Legally yes, but a boss is not entitled to even attempt to convince an employee to engage in a sex act or allowed to participate in a sex act with a willing and consensual employee in most businesses. It is a conflict of interest. People are supposed to get raises for work performance not because they will suck a dick for it.

Re:Coerced?

[rogoshen1]

In this day in age you have to be absolutely pants on head retarded to even THINK about pursuing a romantic relationship with a co-worker (If you're male. Women it seems will get a bit of a pass here.)

And if you've managed to attract the attention of a female co-worker; be afraid, be very afraid -- in fact you might as well resign as you're one spurned advance away from a career ending false #meToo moment. (hyperbole? perhaps).

Re:Coerced?

[squiggleslash]

If you're a paranoid Slashdotter who thinks feminism is scary, then sure. If, on the other hand, you let things happen naturally (as opposed to begging everyone in a skirt for sex), and avoid dating people who work under or over you (this isn't new, the view bosses shouldn't have sex with subordinates is something I remember learning in the 1980s, before I even gained employment myself), you'll be fine.

Social stuff and dating has always been a little scary for nerdy types, but this paranoia crap has really gotten out of hand. You do know members of the opposite gender want relationships and/or sex as much as you do, right? Even *gasp* heterosexual female feminists have boyfriends and sometimes even husbands, the horror!

FWIW, I met my future wife at work. We did lunch a few times, and one thing lead to another, and, well, we're married. With a beautiful kid who's smarter than I am. In the real world, rather than Eric Raymond's blog, this is fine and normal and the way the world works. Stop worrying, just... you know... don't be an asshole and you'll be fine.

Re:Coerced?

[squiggleslash]

No, it hasn't been weaponized, it is paranoia, and what you're describing is not what's happening.

Firstly there are very, very, few cases where #metoo concerns one allegation against a man. In general virtually every #metoo case, from Spacey to Kavanaugh, has involved multiple people bringing up cases of sexual assault. Additionally, virtually all have been corroborated in some way. Dr Ford's testimony, for example, while imperfect, had the somewhat compelling fact behind it that she'd been in therapy about this incident for four years, without any reason to believe Kavanaugh was going to be appointed a supreme court justice. Cosby admitted his behavior in a court deposition on an unrelated case. Weinstein's own staff supported the allegations of multiple victims, and other directors - such as Peter Jackson - came forward to confirm that women who didn't cooperate with Weinstein were smeared and blacklisted.

Second, virtually none of the #metoo claims (none I can think of) involve relationships that have gone wrong.

Third problem: there are multiple disincentives for making false allegations: most women who have come forward have seen negative consequences for their careers despite apparently telling the truth. Now imagine that some idiot makes a false allegation against every ex-boyfriend who she has a bad break-up with. How credible do you think she'd be?

Now, that said, remember that we're talking about here are nerds frightened to date because they think they'll be #metoo'd if they ask Karen from Accounts Receivable on a date. They're not going to be #metoo'd for asking Karen for a date. They will probably suffer an immediate hostile response if they just jump in with a date request without spending some time getting to know her, but it's not likely to go to HR. Frankly, it's not likely to go to HR if it involves a stolen kiss, however gross that might have been for the poor woman, because she's (A) had to put up with this shit for most of her life and knows there are no consequences for people who do this and (B) she'd be embarrassed and unlikely to say anything anyway.

I'm not saying that because I think you should behave that way. Of course not! (1) You'd be an asshole if you did, and (2) if you're really interested in a date with Karen then you probably want her to be happy, rather than feeling disgusting and humiliated. But the point I'm making is that women put up with rather a lot of low level shit that you'd never think would be tolerated, so the paranoia about #metoo isn't justified. Let things happen naturally. Try not to be a dork. If it's not to be, it's not to be, be prepared to let go.

You definitely shouldn't be putting your life on hold because you think the moment you ask Karen to lunch Gloria Allred's going to appear out of nowhere demanding you be fired and Karen gets paid one kagillion dollars.

Re:Coerced?

[AmiMoJo]

Easier to blame feminism and #metoo than to look at yourself I guess.

What's really sad is that this belief stops guys improving themselves or getting any help.

Andy Rubin?

[Anonymous Coward]

More like Andy RUBIN DEEZ NUTZ ON UR FACE.

Literally.

Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

Should I care?

[WaffleMonster]

What am I supposed to believe "coerce" means in the context of this article?

Does coerce mean a promise to buy her a nice dinner later?

Does coerce mean threatening to chop her head off with a dull axe?

Interesting an article that goes on and on about golden parachutes, emails and extraneous drama involving unrelated people providing a history of who fucked who would pay lip service to the most critical aspect of the underlying story in a manner that offers no substantive information about the actual topic of the article to the reader.

Re:Should I care?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmkay. So if a right-winger is involved, it's raah feminism, #WeBelieveSurvivors, Handmaid's Tale!

As soon as it's a left-winger, you start debating the meaning of "is"?

If we could harness hypocrisy for clean energy, we would solve global warming tomorrow.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[djinn6]

They're applying different standards to different people. Social Justice rules are for the little guys. The big shots get to do whatever they like.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

How is that "SJW" though? Aren't SJWs famous for going after the rich and powerful?

It's almost as if that term is just a meaningless pejorative.

Re: Lascivious J bastards

[AmiMoJo]

If there is no agreed definition of SJW, no identifiable group or traits that we can use to make a determination, then the phrase is meaningless.

I've noticed that in almost every case where the phrase is used it's about vague claims of irrational behaviour rather than specific incidents. Often it's just speculation about what might happen in the future, were such people to actually exist.

It's the ultimate straw man. It both labels your opponent, instantly enraging many listeners and poisoning the well, and lets you make any ridiculous claim to rail against because SJWs are known to be completely ridiculous.