Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday February 20 2018, @01:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the everybody-knows dept.

From The Verge:

Google didn't violate labor laws by firing engineer James Damore for a memo criticizing the company's diversity program, according to a recently disclosed letter from the US National Labor Relations Board. The lightly redacted statement is written by Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel of the NLRB's division of advice; it dates to January, but was released yesterday, according to Law.com. Sophir concludes that while some parts of Damore's memo were legally protected by workplace regulations, "the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected."

Damore filed an NLRB complaint in August of 2017, after being fired for internally circulating a memo opposing Google's diversity efforts. Sophir recommends dismissing the case; Bloomberg reports that Damore withdrew it in January, and that his lawyer says he's focusing on a separate lawsuit alleging discrimination against conservative white men at Google. NLRB records state that its case was closed on January 19th.

There are White House Staff positions open, I hear.

Previously: Google Fires Author of Divisive Memo on Gender Differences
Google Cancels "Town Hall" Due to Leaks


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by jmorris on Tuesday February 20 2018, @07:15AM (2 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @07:15AM (#640525)

    One of those protected classes is political opinion. CA is one of the few States to have such a thing. Guess why? :)

    To protect members of the Communist Party back in the day.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by number11 on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:37AM (1 child)

    by number11 (1170) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday February 21 2018, @05:37AM (#641049)

    Political? That wasn't political, that was about biology, society, hiring practices. AFAICT there was no mention of any candidate or ballot issue. He does use the words "political", "left", "right", but I suppose it depends on law's definition of those terms. In a sense everything is political, and maybe this is an illustration of the line that "all politics is local", but the law can't mean that. If you work for Boeing, and circulate a deeply felt screed about how defense contractors rip off the nation and have blood on their hands, that's "political" but you'd get fired there, too. Hell, I agree with some of his points, but only a fool wouldn't have known that publishing that at the workplace was playing with fire.

    If it was protected under CA law, why didn't he seek remedy under that law instead of the NLRB?

    Nope. The stereotype is that engineers and IT types have very poor social skills, and he sure boosted that stereotype. He just learned that if you piss a lot of people off at work, and especially if you piss off management, you can get your ass canned. Is that right? I dunno, maybe if you view a job as an entitlement it is. But apparently management didn't see it that way.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:44AM

      by jmorris (4844) on Wednesday February 21 2018, @07:44AM (#641071)

      Sorry, you aren't making sense. Your Crimestop filter is interfering with your ability to communicate, you are Doublethinking to avoid the issue. You can hold two contradictory ideas in your head, I can't. If Damore's paper was scientific, considering none of the leading experts (at least none willing to speak) in the field found no errors, firing him was insane. Firing him for discussing the details of corporate policy on a forum dedicated to that purpose would also be insane. So it had to be for the political content.

      Hell, I agree with some of his points, but only a fool wouldn't have known that publishing that at the workplace was playing with fire.

      So you agree that Google is a hostile work environment that enforces a rigid political / religious orthodoxy and punishes political dissent. In most States that is legal but, as I noted, CA considers that a protected class as a legacy from when CPUSA members were being fired and the CA legislature had enough ComSymps to pass a bill to make firing them illegal. We are talking about a case here where it was company policy to "allow anyone to speak freely on company policy" but of course it was a lie, only ideas compatible with $current_year Political Correct thought are permitted.