Fired Google Engineer Loses Diversity Memo Challenge

Post by majormajor » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:34 PM UTC

tntn wrote: post #124

majormajor wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theo…

> Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? If you subscribe to the view that same-sex marriage is a sin against a higher power, then your involvement in the marriage makes you actively involved in the sin. If sinners get married, the marriage itself is not a sin. This is very straightforward in my mind.…

Post by manfredo » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:35 PM UTC

Aunche wrote: post #110

notconservative wrote: post #21

> “Much of" Damore’s memo was probably protected under the law. ... But ... Google discharged Damore only for his "discriminatory statements," which aren’t shielded by labor law. Given how significantly many people have misunderstood Damore's claims, this seems to open up a hole for companies to mischaracterize someone as a racist/sexist/etc and then fire them over it.

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer. People really did exaggerate how bad the memo really was. That said, it definitely has portions that brought up stereotypes without citing direct evidence, like how men have a higher drive to achieve status. Google considered these statements "discriminatory," which sounded reasonable enough to the NLRB. It doesn't matter whether these statements were actually discriminatory because they…

Post by juicyfroot » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:36 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #2

The first thing everyone needs to know about this is what the case was about, because it implicates one of the most powerful and least known rights tech company employees have. According to Section 8(a)(1) of the NLRA, employees can't generally be disciplined for exercising the rights provided under Section 7 of the NLRA. These rights are commonly understood to be about unionizing (ie, you can't be fired for trying r…

Post by ankushnarula » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:37 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #138

ankushnarula wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a narrow and incomplete reading of Damore's memo based on prejudice. Damore's description that on average men and women are different is not itself discriminatory or harmful since it's backed up by quite a lot of biological and psychometric science. The question should have been "What is Damore advocating?". And if they read the entire document then it would be clear that Damore was suggesting methods t…

No, the Advice Memo repeatedly notes that much of the memo is not objectionable. The problem Damore faced with the NLRB is that Google was careful to terminate him specifically and exclusively for the parts of the memo that would advocate policies problematic under EEO laws. They read the whole memo (and indeed summarize a lot of it, not just the prejudicial bits).

Post by panopticon » Fri, Feb 16, 2018, 11:39 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #120

devinhelton wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's important I think to understand that the NLRB isn't saying that it's unlawful to write the Damore memo." Well, they did call what Damore wrote "sexual harassment" and "discriminatory", and sexual harassment is illegal and violates EEO, so that is basically saying that what he wrote is unlawful: "The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be…

It is probably not generally unlawful for a rank-and-file employee to make discriminatory statements. You can be fired for doing that, but the government is unlikely to step in and do that for your employer.