Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#121

Post by rachofsunshine »

dionidium wrote: post #64
rchaud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se... Google has enough money to hire the best law firms too. Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client? The linked settlement is 10X that of this one, whic…

> Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin? The state of US case law -- IANAL, this is a layman's understanding -- is that plaintiffs only have to show that there exists "disparate impact," which is to say that outcomes were not exactly the same for Asians/whites and blacks. Two things can be true: 1)…

Also NAL but I don't think you're correct about this.

First: the standard isn't relevant to a nuisance suit, since by definition you don't expect to win a nuisance suit anyway.

But setting that aside, disparate impact requires a significant difference in outcome and can be defended against by showing that the standards are relevant to job performance ("business necessity"). That's true for both the federal Civil Rights Act and the California Equal Pay Act (which is what this suit was brought under). So a "single variable analysis" isn't the end of the story, and employers can (and often do) provide statistical arguments that their policies satisfy business necessity.

I'd suggest looking up the case (Griggs v. Duke Power Co.) that established the disparate impact standard in the first place. TLDR, a company that had explicitly discriminatory Jim Crow-era policies banning black employees from certain departments adopted new requirements on the day the Civil Rights Act went into effect. Those requirements hadn't been in place before, Duke Power could not show any actual connection with job performance, and white employees were two to ten times more likely to satisfy them. A unanimous court (which, as a fun trivia fact, included an open former member of the Klan!) said nope, can't do that.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#122

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ben_w wrote: post #100
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> this is linguistically correct… if we were speaking Spanish That the linguistically correct in both English and Spanish (and other Latin-derivative languages) term “Latin” got passed over in favour of Latinx sort of speaks to the motivations of those who pushed it.

"Latin" is a demonym in Spanish? Huh. Well, I repeat the point about my Spanish language (lack of) skill. (At time of writing Spanish is not listed on https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/latin or https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Latin , but I don't know how complete that dictionary is).

> "Latin" is a demonym in Spanish?

It’s not--it's still a neologism. But it’s grammatically conventional to both languages in a way LatinX is not. (The idea of neutering languages without a neuter tense is its own can if worms.)

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#123

Post by JumpCrisscross »

unclebucknasty wrote: post #102
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Of course, there is no Swiss ERG, as it's the "default" Switzerland is a country of three dominant languages. When I worked for a Swiss bank, they had internal groups for, essentially, domestic expats.

Not surprising. There are different ways to view identity, and none of us are any one thing. Your observation underscores my point that providing support along the lines of identity can be completely benign sans a political context. That said, feel free to substitute a more homogenous country if that helps to clarify my point.

The point is offering development resources based on race, an immutable characteristic, is deeply unsettling to a lot of people. (I’m not white, for what it’s worth.)

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#124

Post by unclebucknasty »

jlawson wrote: post #108
unclebucknasty wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was a ERG for literally every single race except White people. "Just join one of the others" was what they told me. Imagine moving to say, Switzerland, to work for a massive corporation. 90% of the employees are Swiss. The other 10% come from a smattering of other countries from around the world. To help those employees acclimate to a new culture and find support, the company sponsors country-based ERGs. Of c…

Google is like 45% white, 45% Asian. Asians have an ERG. If Whites want to make an ERG, why can't they? What is special about Whites that they must be prevented from doing the thing that literally all others have done?

>Asians have an ERG.

Google doesn't exist in a vacuum, but in a broader culture (e.g. America). If you're coming from an Asian country, you might still feel alienated or simply want to connect with people who intrinsically understand your culture.

That said, the Asian makeup of Google has increased significantly over the years. I wonder how that has impacted the participation rate in its ERG versus when it was originally established.

>* What is special about Whites that they must be prevented from doing the thing that literally all others have done?*

The dominant culture is essentially the "default" and is somewhat "self-reinforcing", so generally has no need of an identity-based support group. Thus, when the dominant culture does establish an identity-based group, it tends to take on a different meaning.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#125

Post by yieldcrv »

add-sub-mul-div wrote: post #9
wilsonfiifi wrote: post #6

I wonder why “Black” employees were asked to be excluded from the lawsuit before Google agreed to settle.

I wondered that too. Maybe the data presented by the plaintiffs showed that they were less egregiously or obviously affected?

No, it simultaneously bolstered the case while being covered by a different settlement

lol

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#126

Post by rachofsunshine »

moate wrote: post #97
dietr1ch wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Side rant. Cut the Latinx crap please, Latinos don't really feel represented by the force-fed "inclusive" name that straight up goes against their gendered languages. It's overriding the language to seem more inclusive in English

Just to be clear on this one: are you Latino? Why do you speak for them? I have latino friends who insist on that language, some who don't give a fuck, and latinx friends who own that jab at the patriarchal idea of forcing gender on genderless objects or groups. Put another way: The NAACP didn't change their name, but if you called most black folk I know "colored" they'd punch you in the throat. Language is fluid and…

I probably agree much more with you on these issues in general than I do with the other poster, and there are so many bigger problems right now, but we don't need to speak for anyone here. We just listen to what's already been said.

https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/09/12/la...

Less than half of Hispanics have even heard the term "Latinx", and of those that have, an overwhelming majority (75%) say they'd rather you don't use it. This is true regardless of age, gender, race, education level, party affiliation, orientation/gender identity, and immigration status - you don't get a much clearer picture than that in a poll. The plurality, and usually majority, preferred term across all demographic slices was "Hispanic", which is also not gendered.

If we choose particular terminology, and ask others to do so as well, shouldn't it be with the clearly-expressed preferences of the people we're talking about in mind? To me, that seems like the most obviously-respectful path.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#127

Post by [deleted] »

yieldcrv wrote: post #120
wijwp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most other groups have had a rough go at it throughout recent history, and often have to approach the workplace differently because it takes a long time to reverse some of our previous mistakes. We considered many black folks property until 1865, and we had segregation of some schools in the 1960s. We didn't let women vote until 1920. We put Japanese people in internment camps until 1946. Gay folks couldn't mar…

That doesn't explain why ERG's exist for that, and it doesn't explain why they are dismissive of what people who are white && and not women encounter in life or as an employee, seeking resources Why are you invalidating their experience, its look like you have let something else leak into the workplace under an amusingly ironic interpretation of empathy Let's write it again in a different way: Nothing about the name…

[deleted]

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#128

Post by wijwp »

yieldcrv wrote: post #120
wijwp wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, most other groups have had a rough go at it throughout recent history, and often have to approach the workplace differently because it takes a long time to reverse some of our previous mistakes. We considered many black folks property until 1865, and we had segregation of some schools in the 1960s. We didn't let women vote until 1920. We put Japanese people in internment camps until 1946. Gay folks couldn't mar…

That doesn't explain why ERG's exist for that, and it doesn't explain why they are dismissive of what people who are white && and not women encounter in life or as an employee, seeking resources Why are you invalidating their experience, its look like you have let something else leak into the workplace under an amusingly ironic interpretation of empathy Let's write it again in a different way: Nothing about the name…

> Why are you invalidating their experience

What experience are you talking about? What resources are lacking that don't address those experiences?

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#129

Post by fallingknife »

dionidium wrote: post #64
rchaud wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/andy-rubin-google-settlement-se... Google has enough money to hire the best law firms too. Why would any law firm engage in frivolous litigation against a potential future client? The linked settlement is 10X that of this one, whic…

> Got any evidence for that? Is Google in the habit of paying out giant HR-related settlements for something other than protecting good ol' boys like Andy Rubin? The state of US case law -- IANAL, this is a layman's understanding -- is that plaintiffs only have to show that there exists "disparate impact," which is to say that outcomes were not exactly the same for Asians/whites and blacks. Two things can be true: 1)…

> they could still be held liable for hiring results that look like discrimination in a single-variable analysis.

If anything shows that our liability laws and adjudication process is written by lawyers for lawyers it's rules like this.

Re: Google to pay $28M to settle claims it favoured white and Asian employees

#130

Post by qingcharles »

SR2Z wrote: post #21
bilbo0s wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, squeeky wheel gets the oil. The bigger issue really is that Google should start reviews of a lot of managerial decisions in this regard. If you've got courts agreeing with plaintiffs, then these people you've been hiring are pursuing their, um, "preferences", a little bit too openly. You have to take things back in hand.

The court did not agree with the plaintiffs - this case was settled outside of court.

I'm guessing the court made no statement either way if there was a settlement? A civil court's job in the USA is to try every possible means to help both sides to reach a settlement (or other disposition) without trial. Trial is an extraordinary remedy.
Post reply on HN