Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
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.
Actually, legally no, though it's civil liability rather than criminal. And the legal issue is not conflict of interest. Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual. A hypothetical example would be, oh, say the President of the United States and a White House intern.
He got $90 million AND a blowjob? I'm in the wrong line of work!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
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.
Coercion is implicit when a there is a significant difference in the power or authority of the two parties, even when both parties claim the relationship is consensual.
I call bullshit. Citation please. We're not talking about statutory rape here.
NO citation necessary. IF the boss is trying to get a person who works for him to do something personal and not business related (sexual or otherwise) it is considered improper and subject to civil litigation. If it's a sexual favor being proffered for say a good review, retaining one's job or some such, epically if the "victim" is a woman, willing or not, you can bet her lawyer will have THEIR way with you and your company for allowing it.
I'm telling you, DON'T date where you work. Even as peer to peer. It's hardly ever a good idea and rarely works out well for anybody involved.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
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.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.