SoylentNews

James Damore's Labor Complaint Against Google Was Completely Shut Down

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

aristarchus writes:

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

• Re:Which parts again? (Score: 3, Insightful) by insanumingenium on Tuesday February 20 2018, @04:36PM

  by insanumingenium (4824) on Tuesday February 20 2018, @04:36PM (#640714) Journal

  Have a link [google.com]

  ... statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers.

  Those two points hung him, and they aren't terribly supportable scientifically as near as I can tell. Sadly if he had left it as a pure opinion piece and didn't try and fill it with (poor) science, it would have been protected speech. As is, he didn't actually have any science at all in his paper (no citations to actual science, and no documentation of original work).

  Parent

  Starting Score:	1		point
  Moderation		+1
  Insightful=1, Total=1
  Extra 'Insightful' Modifier		0
  Karma-Bonus Modifier		+1
  Total Score:		3