The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 iSteve BlogTeasers
Does James Damore Have the Law on His Side?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

On CNBC, a California employment lawyer writes:

Why it may be illegal for Google to punish that engineer over his now viral anti-diversity memo

It wasn’t exactly a memo, it was an essay posted on an internal company discussion board.

Dan Eaton | @DanEatonlaw

… Many inside and outside of Google have called for the man’s dismissal. However, there are at least three ways the law may keep the company from imposing any discipline.

First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions. The purpose of the memo was to persuade Google to abandon certain diversity-related practices the engineer found objectionable and to convince co-workers to join his cause, or at least discuss the points he raised.

In a reply to the initial outcry over his memo, the engineer added to his memo: “Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired.” The law protects that kind of “concerted activity.”

Second, the engineer’s memo largely is a statement of his political views as they apply to workplace policies. The memo is styled as a lament to “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action. …

Third … it is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws. In other words, the engineer doesn’t have to be right that some of Google’s diversity initiatives are unlawful, only that he reasonably believes that they are.

More speculatively, some are raising a challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act on the contention that Google is discriminating against a member of the neurodiverse.

 
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. My 3 to your 1 he was let go with a rich severance package and an NDA.
    I could be wrong, but that’s your 1, my 3.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    http://www.businessinsider.com/fired-google-employee-says-hes-exploring-all-possible-legal-remedies-2017-8

    If he had settled then he wouldn't be "exploring legal remedies".
    , @AnotherDad

    My 3 to your 1 he was let go with a rich severance package and an NDA.
    I could be wrong, but that’s your 1, my 3.
     
    Uh ... where do I sign up? And how much of your money do I get to take?

    This wasn't done with the eye toward Google saving money (directly), it was done as "ritual humiliation" in order to show that Google is fully "on-board", fully SJW compliant. From the legal--employment law--perspective it was clearly unwise. But these techies are some combination of complete sniveling cowards and true believers so they did what they did anyway. Fealty's a bitch.

    Again let's set this up. We could say, both send money to Steve and he gets a share of my winnings? How much is the bet?
    , @Barnard
    He obviously didn't sign an NDA as he is already giving interviews about it. I doubt he received any severance at all other than what he was owed for work through his last day of employment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/does-james-damore-have-the-law-on-his-side/#comment-1961456
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Barnard says:

    I just read another article touting the neurodiverse angle and hope he doesn’t pursue that. The last thing we need is to have Aspies classified as another class of protected victims in employment, plus that was the kind of thing he was arguing against.

    Read More
    • Agree: Travis
    • Replies: @L Woods
    Why not? They have an infinitely more valid claim to legitimate victimhood and discrimination than women and NAMs do.
    , @Njguy73

    The last thing we need is to have Aspies classified as another class of protected victims in employment, plus that was the kind of thing he was arguing against.
     
    A major trend in tech over the past few years has been to recruit persons with Asperger's for their coding abilities. Certain companies have the recruits go through social skills training before starting their internships. I've met people who've been through that, and they have proved that Asperger's need not be barrier to gainful employment and integration into a company's culture.

    The last thing that should happen is for this to be a case of "I can be callous and rude because I have Asperger's."
  3. JA says:

    Little-known fact:

    Unlike the federal right to free speech (which only applies to the government), the right of free expression in the California constitution applies to private parties.

    Read More
  4. The law is largely null and void. Selective enforcement is SOP these days. Narrative is King of this fiefdom.

    Read More
  5. Selvar says:

    Good. Make the bastards live by their own rules. None of this “principled libertarian/ muh freedom of association” nonsense. Whenever possible, use the full force of the managerial state against multicultural leftists and their institutions the way they use it against us. Companies must learn to have a real fear of legal liability whenever they fire those with right wing or generally politically incorrect views. That should make for some positive institutional change in our direction. At the very least, it will level out the playing field.

    Read More
    • Agree: anarchyst, TomSchmidt
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Good. Make the bastards live by their own rules. None of this “principled libertarian/ muh freedom of association” nonsense. Whenever possible, use the full force of the managerial state against multicultural leftists and their institutions the way they use it against us.
     
    Rules for Radicals. It's not just for leftists anymore.
  6. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

     

    That's a good question.

    I listen to the Three Martini Lunch podcast from Ricochet, and Jim Geraghty brought up this exact point. He concluded that CK should not be blackballed by the NFL for expressing his political views, although he might be deserving of some sanction. It's a brief daily news summary podcast, so Geraghty didn't develop his stance beyond this.

    It's a complicated issue. The NFL is an entertainment provider, so it's arguable that CK was knowingly harming his employer's core product by engaging in extraneous displays of a purely personal nature that distracted from that product's attractiveness to potential customers. It's not clear that Damore's memo was intended to distract from or potentially harm Google's business; you might even argue that he was trying to get his employer's business back on track.

    It will be interesting to see how both cases move forward.

    , @cliff arroyo
    There's no suggestion that his actual job performance was sub-par, unlike Colin 'Interception' Kaepernick who did not have a good season.
    , @CK
    The difference would be how many interceptions Damore threw and how many losses they led to.
    , @anon
    The main difference, and chief irony of this case, is that James Damore is arguing that his employer's hiring practices are basically fair.

    He's probably the first guy in history to be fired because his bosses aren't discriminatory.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    CK is an ungrateful dick who isn't very good?
    , @Burdell
    It would be a better comparison if Kaepernick were criticizing the NFL for hiding CTE research.
    , @Dee
    "What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?"

    Tats, big Afro, probably 7 inches in height, 4.4 in 40 yard sprint, wasn't fired, still admired by SJW's, more tats....LOL

    Similarities; both are/will be millionaires, won't be able to get a job in their chosen field, act as warning signs to others in same fields....I'm sure there are dozens more....
    , @AnotherDad

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?
     
    Truth.


    But if you're saying "right to hire and fire" or more broadly "freedom of association", i'm all in.

    This "civil rights" crap of the last 50 where there's an every growing list of officially approved whiners is a cancerous contentious evil. An evil that can only grow more contentious in a "diverse" and "multicultural" society.

    Basic freedom of association is a fundamental natural right. It was so basic the founders couldn't even imagine it being violated--the state telling me who could go into my establishment? who to hire or fire? who to rent my lodgings to? So, not even imagining the mentality of people who would show up in America or the statist nightmare that would result, the founders didn't include it in the Bill of Rights. Major blunder.

    Let people associate as they want. Fire those in touch with basic biological reality--fine. Have it in for white guys--fine. But also ... not baking cakes for a couple butt banging fags. Not hiring women if you don't want to--or only young cute ones to serve up drinks. Not hiring blacks if you don't want to. Not inviting blacks or Jews into your country club. Or slapping quotas on Jews at your university. Or having a covenant to keep blacks out of your neighborhood. Or only hiring Evangelicals. Or only hiring Jews. Or not hiring old bald geezers like me. Or keeping Chinese or Mexicans or Muslims--or any foreigners at all--out of your nation. Fine, fine, fine, fine, fine, fine and fine. People should be free to associate how they want. That's precisely what liberty actually is.
    , @res

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?
     
    That's a softball. Let's see:
    - Kaepernick took an exceedingly public stance. Damore's memo was a private internal measure which someone else made public.
    - Damore's memo was fact based and written with the intent to improve the working environment. Kaepernick's opinions were at best just that and his actions took the form of protest.
    - Damore's memo was addressing issues with Google policy that were arguably illegal and are the subject of a formal NLRB complaint.

    Is that enough?

    And for a non-relevant difference:
    - The SJWs championed Kaepernick and demonized Damore.
    , @Brutusale
    The cases are not the same. Kaepernick opted out of his contract. You can make your own judgment as to whether the fact that he's an asshole or that he sucked last year is the reason why he can't find a new gig.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2017/03/03/kaepernick-opts-out-of-contract-becomes-free-agent/98714304/
  7. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I’ve just reread the whole memo. I suspect I’m not the only one that didn’t read it too closely upon first perusal, since so much of it is directly about Google and didn’t seem to concern me, and moreover it didn’t really seem so provocative to me. But these elements are what make it much more interesting now.

    The overt focus of the memo is entirely on opening up discussion regarding Google’s internal practices, practices that Damore deems harmful. He is not using company time or resources to spout views on unrelated matters, but rather to raise issues that he regards as crucial to the functioning of the company. This seems to render the memo not a “free speech” issue, but a labor relations issue.

    Note that the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html) says the Damore reports, in an email he sent them, that he filed a NLRB complaint before his firing:

    Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge.

    So it seems that Damore may be quite astute.

    As for the rather non-provocative nature of the memo, this seems crucial too. There are pretty much no factual assertions that are not fairly obviously true. He is extremely careful to render generalizations as statistical generalizations, and to refrain from endorsing any single cause for the truth of the statistical generalization he mentions.

    So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the memo that, taken literally, would “threaten” a reasonable person. What threatens some people is that the very act of promulgating the memo marks him as someone who will not submit to their fashionable orthodoxy. But it seems that the law, as it is currently written, does not support them.

    I suspect that the basis for Damore’s case will be: 1) Google clearly fired him for trying to open discussion about harmful workplace practices, and 2) that there is no sound counter-argument that he himself was creating a “hostile work environment” since everything he says is reasonable in its own right, and quite relevant to the workplace issues that are the actual focus of the memo.

    Maybe the relevance issue is the key to victory. It is perfectly reasonable, in its own right, for a man to desire sexual relations with his female coworker. It is perhaps unreasonable to believe that she should be required to hear about this as a condition of her employment. So I think there is some reasonable basis for “hostile environment” laws, in some form. Likewise, I’ll even grant that, in certain cases, promulgation of objectively true “hatefacts” can create a “hostile environment”. Suppose a white employee repeatedly, and without provocation, mentions to a black employee that the average IQ for blacks is however much lower than that for whites. If the white guy is bringing this up repeatedly for no work-related purpose, then this is arguably meant as intimidation, and the black guy has the law on his side, and I think somewhat reasonably so. But in Damore’s memo, so far as I can tell, all of the claims that the haters object to are not only objectively true, but they are directly related to the workplace issues that Damore is aiming to address.

    We haven’t heard much about Dr. Dao recently, have we? He shut up quick. Money does things. Eight figures, I say. Google’s lawyers should make a BIG offer this week, contingent on total silence. That’ll secure time for the big boys to make somewhat better decisions on what to do with their google investments.

    Read More
    • Agree: Patrick Harris
    • Replies: @NickG

    He is not using company time or resources to spout views on unrelated matters,
     
    Apparently he wrote it on a 12 hour flight to China.
    , @Boethiuss

    So it seems that Damore may be quite astute.
     
    This seems right to me, which affects things in some important ways.

    Ie, his example is probably a user counter-Narrative for the alt-right, but Damore himself does not intend to be defined by that. That ought to be ok, but neither the Trump Administration or the alt-right in general has a lot of experience with this kind of cultural politics. The first time it's clear that Damore has other fish to fry than white nationalism, he'll a neocon cuck, blah, blah.
  8. I woulda fired him for being wordy and disorganized.

    Read More
  9. donut says:

    Who has the law on his side ? I have good reason to believe that my half bother is trying to cheat me out of my share of the half million $ property that my mother owns in Bequia . And fool that I was I trusted my own father who was worth a couple of million and yet he cheated me out of a measly two or three thousand dollars worth of furniture . As all of you may know I am an asshole . But that doesn’t mean that I don’t deserve what my mother left to me . And now I find that my friends Carol , Elisa and Michelle and Cecil have my interests at heart . I don’t understand . If it came down to it I would rather become homeless than cheat even a stranger out of his due . I don’t believe in a God , but I do believe in justice . Please someone tell me that I am wrong to be a fool and trust in justice that God promises us .

    Read More
    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    We've missed you. The soap opera is somewhat novel. Steve often laments his ideas for scripts that will never be produced. Perhaps you two could collaborate on your autobiographical telenovela....
    , @Bel Riose
    On the standard 1-10 scale, how hot are Carol, Elisa and Michelle, respectively?
  10. Elsewhere I have seen people say that we should refer to it as “The Google Manifesto” so we can get up Googles noses in a big way.

    I hope it catches on!

    Read More
  11. anonguy says:

    I’m sure Clock Boy here had some competent lawyers vet his scenario and verbiage in advance of the game.

    Everything is very carefully crafted.

    More power to the dude if he can hoist Google by its own petard while getting a payday for himself.

    But this whole thing is a setup.

    Read More
  12. More speculatively, some are raising a challenge under the Americans with Disabilities Act on the contention that Google is discriminating against a member of the neurodiverse.

    This could indeed be a productive way of looking at things for all sorts of cases, but in some sense it’s like making the case that LeBron James is physically disabled.

    Read More
  13. Achilles says:

    Sundar’s memo about “Our words matter” was undoubtedly written, for the most part, by a California employment lawyer.

    The memo tried to narrow the reason for the firing down to something legally defensible, and disclaim as a purpose legally impermissible reasons:

    So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics

    The statements that were the basis of the firing, according to Sundar’s memo, appear to be statements discussing biological differences between the two sexes (now called “genders” in place of the more accurate and precise word “sexes”):

    portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

    I’m not sure that James’s case is all that strong on the merits, under either federal or California law, if Sundar’s explanation withstands scrutiny.

    However, as a practical matter I expect Google to settle with him for a substantial sum, for the reason that if a lawsuit proceeds James will be entitled to discovery of internal Google communications having to do with his termination.

    Imagine the outraged emails and text messages that must have been flying around Google management among these arrogant SJW wannabe-Red Guard culture cleansers!

    It may be quite difficult in light of that record to defend that the termination was based on a permissible and not an impermissible reason.

    Of course, if James were to go to court and actually get a favorable decision that imposing a hostile environment for political viewpoints is against California labor law, imagine what that would mean for colleges and universities up and down the California coast!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I think that you are missing the core legal strategy here (which I discuss in a long comment as Anonymous that is not yet approved as I write this).
    James is not going to fight this on the grounds that he is being penalized for his political viewpoint. He is fighting this on "labor relations" law. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" issues that he raises in the memo are, in his view, related to his "workplace conditions". So far as I can tell, you are legally protected from retaliation for raising discussion of workplace conditions. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you are legally protected even if you are factually wrong. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" factual claims that James makes are actually true. This can be legally established in court with some number of reasonably prestigious expert witnesses. So he is well within his legal rights to raise these factual points, in a workplace setting, in a discussion of workplace issues. He is NOT fighting a political viewpoint discrimination case. He is fighting for the ESTABLISHED right to initiate discussion of workplace conditions without retaliation.


    Sundar was on vacation and didn't think this through!
    , @Autochthon

    The author had a right to express their views on those topics.
     
    If this piece was written by a lawyer, it's a shame Google, Inc. cannot afford counsel capable of making subjects and verbs agree in formal memoranda....
    , @res

    if a lawsuit proceeds James will be entitled to discovery of internal Google communications having to do with his termination.
     
    There is also the issue of how the memo became public. Damore contends he sent it to an internal "skeptics group" and thinks that was the source (AFAICT). Was that communication supposed to be private? Surely violating privacy in a way that turns someone into the subject of an internet witch hunt is an issue?

    P.S. Search for skeptic in the Peterson interview transcript for my source for that assertion.
  14. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don’t know.

    A Jujitsu move by the Trump administration, if it were interested, would be to partner with the EU in cutting Google and Facebook down to size. If Standard Oil was too big to be one company, those two are too. Split off Google search and regulate it as a utility. Let the rest of Alphabet do what it wants without that cash spigot.

    Maybe break Facebook up into regional companies, like Standard Oil or Ma Bell, and regulate it as a utility as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss

    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don’t know.
     
    I think Olson is right here, but what he's talking about is a slightly different problem. That's to say, a woman or feminist at Google can't legitimately sue for a hostile work environment based on Damore's essay (except that he also goes on to say that the big picture tends to lead to exactly that). But even if that were the case, it doesn't immediately help Damore. He's still at-will with Google according to California, and guess what, Google has lost its will to continue his employment.

    You're getting warmer with anti-trust and regulation as a utility. It's important to note that there's no necessary causal relationship between the two. We can do either or both independently.

    For example, there's a case recently where some white nationalists where thrown out as tenants for AirBnB en route to a rally in Charlottesville. You can say that they don't have any particular right to public accommodation in someone's house. But, it's just as easy to say that the AirBnB platform _is_ a public accommodation, and regulate it accordingly.
    , @O'Really
    Thanks for pointing to this. If only there were a GOP Congress and President at any point in the last 20 years to rein in some of these abuses of Title VII.
    , @Karl
    no one loves Facebook corporation; no one loves Google corporation.

    who will be the first to win elected office by noisily running against them?
    , @Lot
    Microsoft almost was broken up. The antitrust case judge was planing to split it into three companies: Windows, Office, and Internet. Then he gave a very inappropriate interview to a reporter and was bounced from the case.

    Breaking up facebook would be similar, the main site would remain but things like WhatsApp and instagram would be divested.
  15. Boethiuss says:

    According to Instapundit, Damore lawyered up even before he published the essay/memo/whatever.

    My gut feeling is that he has the possibility of a case, but it’s tough sledding to make a reality of one, especially if Google goes for a scorched-earth type of defense (which I’m not completely convinced that they’ll do). But the important thing is that in spite of Mr Damore’s salutary effect, we’ve already lost to a significant extent having got this far.

    What we need is some kind of Silicon Valley unicorn analog to the Hays Code, and we’re not within miles of getting it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor

    According to Instapundit, Damore lawyered up even before he published the essay/memo/whatever.
     
    This nicely explains why his memo seemed so pro-diversity. For all we know, this guy might be alt-right.
  16. Boethiuss says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don't know.

    https://twitter.com/walterolson/status/894910903673552897

    A Jujitsu move by the Trump administration, if it were interested, would be to partner with the EU in cutting Google and Facebook down to size. If Standard Oil was too big to be one company, those two are too. Split off Google search and regulate it as a utility. Let the rest of Alphabet do what it wants without that cash spigot.

    Maybe break Facebook up into regional companies, like Standard Oil or Ma Bell, and regulate it as a utility as well.

    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don’t know.

    I think Olson is right here, but what he’s talking about is a slightly different problem. That’s to say, a woman or feminist at Google can’t legitimately sue for a hostile work environment based on Damore’s essay (except that he also goes on to say that the big picture tends to lead to exactly that). But even if that were the case, it doesn’t immediately help Damore. He’s still at-will with Google according to California, and guess what, Google has lost its will to continue his employment.

    You’re getting warmer with anti-trust and regulation as a utility. It’s important to note that there’s no necessary causal relationship between the two. We can do either or both independently.

    For example, there’s a case recently where some white nationalists where thrown out as tenants for AirBnB en route to a rally in Charlottesville. You can say that they don’t have any particular right to public accommodation in someone’s house. But, it’s just as easy to say that the AirBnB platform _is_ a public accommodation, and regulate it accordingly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I am admittedly at sea when it comes to the nuts and bolts of First Amendment issues, but it has been my understanding over the years that the First Amendment free speech clause was only meant to apply to the government, not to a business or private organization. If you are an employee you serve at the pleasure of your employer. So if you mouth off, out you go--and in some states (NY is one I believe) employment may be terminated without cause. Presumably the latter does not apply in CA thoughI could be wrong. Interestingly, businesses can be sued for racial/sexual etc. discrimination under the terms of the Civil Rights Act which was based in part on the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) if that business is a recipient of federal funds or otherwise reaps the benefits of certain federal laws. I would imagine that Google has contracts with the government so I would wonder if Damore could make a parallel argument based upon the free speech clause of the FIRST Amendment. Otherwise, dunno.
  17. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Libs have been saying forever that the firing of communists over ideology and creed in the 50s was unconstitutional and violated civil liberties.

    Hollywood makes a big stink about how communists were fired or blacklisted.

    So, does CREED matter or not? Communism is a creed. Libs say ‘red-baiting’ was wrong cuz it violated the right of creed of American leftist workers. (Of course, Libs are now livid about Trump and Russia, a total fabrication. Suddenly, hysteria and paranoia are cool. )

    If someone at a company were fired for saying pro-homo and anti-Christian things, would it be illegal?
    If someone at a company were fired for saying Zionist things that was deemed ‘hostile’ by Arab-Americans, would it be legal?

    It’s all about the Power.

    ‘Hostile environment’ is like ‘hate speech’. The power gets to decide what is ‘hostile’ or what is ‘hateful’. The Power also decides what is ‘pride’. Today, homo decadence is ‘pride’ than shame.

    The power says Zionism isn’t hateful but BDS is. But sanctioning South Africa wasn’t seen as hateful.

    Btw, truth and honesty will always be hostile to lies and cravenness.
    That kind of hostility is what we need more of.

    Read More
  18. This probably derives from the Wagner act. Hoisted on their own petard, only labor unions were vital expressions of working class Americanism at their peak. Gompers and early Chavez would have voted Trump.

    Read More
  19. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Achilles
    Sundar's memo about "Our words matter" was undoubtedly written, for the most part, by a California employment lawyer.

    The memo tried to narrow the reason for the firing down to something legally defensible, and disclaim as a purpose legally impermissible reasons:

    So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics
     
    The statements that were the basis of the firing, according to Sundar's memo, appear to be statements discussing biological differences between the two sexes (now called "genders" in place of the more accurate and precise word "sexes"):

    portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

     

    I'm not sure that James's case is all that strong on the merits, under either federal or California law, if Sundar's explanation withstands scrutiny.

    However, as a practical matter I expect Google to settle with him for a substantial sum, for the reason that if a lawsuit proceeds James will be entitled to discovery of internal Google communications having to do with his termination.

    Imagine the outraged emails and text messages that must have been flying around Google management among these arrogant SJW wannabe-Red Guard culture cleansers!

    It may be quite difficult in light of that record to defend that the termination was based on a permissible and not an impermissible reason.

    Of course, if James were to go to court and actually get a favorable decision that imposing a hostile environment for political viewpoints is against California labor law, imagine what that would mean for colleges and universities up and down the California coast!

    I think that you are missing the core legal strategy here (which I discuss in a long comment as Anonymous that is not yet approved as I write this).
    James is not going to fight this on the grounds that he is being penalized for his political viewpoint. He is fighting this on “labor relations” law. So far as I can tell, ALL of the “controversial” issues that he raises in the memo are, in his view, related to his “workplace conditions”. So far as I can tell, you are legally protected from retaliation for raising discussion of workplace conditions. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you are legally protected even if you are factually wrong. So far as I can tell, ALL of the “controversial” factual claims that James makes are actually true. This can be legally established in court with some number of reasonably prestigious expert witnesses. So he is well within his legal rights to raise these factual points, in a workplace setting, in a discussion of workplace issues. He is NOT fighting a political viewpoint discrimination case. He is fighting for the ESTABLISHED right to initiate discussion of workplace conditions without retaliation.

    Sundar was on vacation and didn’t think this through!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achilles
    I agree that the main argument on behalf of James will be retaliation for discussing workplace conditions with co-workers.

    If there were to be a favorable decision for James under a theory of hostile environment for political viewpoints, however, it would likely be under Dan Eaton's second point above, and would have repercussions in California.

    So far as I can tell, ALL of the “controversial” factual claims that James makes are actually true.
     
    We're getting to a point where truth is not a defense in this kind of thing. Certainly if the court rules that James's statements on human biodiversity between the sexes are separable from his discussion on workplace conditions, the fact that these "hatefacts" are true would probably not prevent a court from deciding that it was reasonable for Goolag to suppress them as tending to create a hostile environment against women and fire him.

    For example if Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner were working for me, and I kept saying things like "say dude, did you finish that thing you're working on yet" or "hey man, how about finish up the coffee break and get back to work" (in other words, referring to him as a male), we are getting to the point that the fact that I could prove that every cell in his body has a Y chromosome would not be a defense for my refusing to speak of him as a woman.
    , @anonguy
    You are completely right. His paper is so on message in an obviously legally defensible manner, it isn't an accident. As they say, when you see a turtle on a fencepost, you gotta ask how did it get there.

    It is all too tightly crafted to just be innocent happenstance thing, just like various civil rights events like Rosa Parks, etc, were carefully planned/vetted in advance.

    If he were just some aspergy nerd rambling on an internal forum, his document would have had some digressions, etc, but it is spot on.
    , @Muse
    The brilliance of this memo is that it causes a conflict between labor law, (think Unionization and the NLRB) and anti-discrimination law (think sexual harassment, discrimination in hiring EEOC)

    This case is perfectly structured to force google to justify its firing of an employee exercising his rights regarding a protected activity (discussing working conditions - NLRB)and its oppressive diversity policies, which they will argue exists to avoid creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities from an EEO perspective.

    The workplace issue being raised just happens to be the oppressive Diversity/PC policies of the company that restrict any discussion of what portion of the company's lower ration of women and minorities in the company's technical workforce compared to white men is due to genetics or environment.

    One can only hope that the discussion about the cause of this underrepresentation of women and minorities continue to be discussed should this case go to court, as it relates directly to the EEOCs four-fifths employment discrimination test.

    The four-fifths rule prescribes that a selection rate for any group (classified by race, sexual orientation or ethnicity) that is less than four-fifths of that for the group with the highest rate constitutes evidence of adverse impact (also called ‘disparate impact’), that is, discriminatory effects on a protected group.
     
    This is called a prima facia case if discrimination. An employer will be found guilty of discrimination if its hiring practices fail the four-fifths rule. A defense for the four fifths rule is that the application of bona-fide job requirements used to screen out employees caused the improper ratio.

    Employers have as of yet been loath to argue that women and other minorities, when evaluated for a position typically don't meet the job requirements at the same rate, and that is why they are "underrepresented". They avoid this argument by requiring technical degrees.

    When completing OFCCP affirmative action plans, which nearly all large companies must do, the four-fifths rule test is applied against the availability of the candidates theoretically available for the job, not the general population. This allows the employer to simply say there are not enough candidates from protected groups.

    This is why there is such a huge push for STEM career because there are not proportional numbers of women and minorities graduating with STEM degrees when compared to white men.

    HBD'ers would suggest that this is because all traits are normally distributed and vary by gender and race. Thus fewer women and minorities are able and/or interested in doing these jobs. Employers don't want to argue this because they don't want to get egg on their face, and because the HBD argument to employment law would be a new and very unwelcome theory in employment law in the courts. Many SJWs would argue white men caused disparate impact through centuries of oppression.

    The beauty of arguing this case in the ninth circuit versus another circuit is that one can imagine the tortured logic that the US Supreme Court will have to review.
    , @Jack D
    The problem for Damore is this: If he said 20 things that were legally protected and 1 thing that crossed the line, they can still fire him for that one thing. That is clearly what Google is trying to set up.

    That being said, it appears that Damore was aware of this beforehand and that Google was also aware of the weakness of their case but was under such overwhelming pressure from SJWs that they had to cast Damore overboard to make the pain go away.

    If later on when the firestorm has died down, they have to pay him a rich settlement, hey they've got plenty of money - a couple of million to them is like a penny to you and I. Maybe they even fight this in court /before the NLRB to show the SJWs that they are really serious about punishing sexist evildoers and if they lose, well that's not their fault - they tried to do the right thing. And they might not lose - the bureaucracy and courts in Cal. are not exactly loaded with right wing sympathizers.

    Or else, more likely, they drag this out as long as possible so that the public loses interest and to see whether Damore has enough legal/financial resources to withstand the onslaught of motions and when it comes time for them to produce all the embarrassing emails from the shrill SJWs at Google demanding Damore's head on a plate, they settle. Meanwhile Damore's life has been consumed in the legal process for years and 90% of the employers in S.V. would not touch him with a 10 foot pole, so even by winning he still loses. So no one else with any common sense will ever want to write a memo like that again.
  20. O'Really says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don't know.

    https://twitter.com/walterolson/status/894910903673552897

    A Jujitsu move by the Trump administration, if it were interested, would be to partner with the EU in cutting Google and Facebook down to size. If Standard Oil was too big to be one company, those two are too. Split off Google search and regulate it as a utility. Let the rest of Alphabet do what it wants without that cash spigot.

    Maybe break Facebook up into regional companies, like Standard Oil or Ma Bell, and regulate it as a utility as well.

    Thanks for pointing to this. If only there were a GOP Congress and President at any point in the last 20 years to rein in some of these abuses of Title VII.

    Read More
  21. NickG says:
    @Anonymous
    I've just reread the whole memo. I suspect I'm not the only one that didn't read it too closely upon first perusal, since so much of it is directly about Google and didn't seem to concern me, and moreover it didn't really seem so provocative to me. But these elements are what make it much more interesting now.

    The overt focus of the memo is entirely on opening up discussion regarding Google's internal practices, practices that Damore deems harmful. He is not using company time or resources to spout views on unrelated matters, but rather to raise issues that he regards as crucial to the functioning of the company. This seems to render the memo not a "free speech" issue, but a labor relations issue.

    Note that the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html) says the Damore reports, in an email he sent them, that he filed a NLRB complaint before his firing:

    Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge.
     
    So it seems that Damore may be quite astute.

    As for the rather non-provocative nature of the memo, this seems crucial too. There are pretty much no factual assertions that are not fairly obviously true. He is extremely careful to render generalizations as statistical generalizations, and to refrain from endorsing any single cause for the truth of the statistical generalization he mentions.

    So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the memo that, taken literally, would "threaten" a reasonable person. What threatens some people is that the very act of promulgating the memo marks him as someone who will not submit to their fashionable orthodoxy. But it seems that the law, as it is currently written, does not support them.

    I suspect that the basis for Damore's case will be: 1) Google clearly fired him for trying to open discussion about harmful workplace practices, and 2) that there is no sound counter-argument that he himself was creating a "hostile work environment" since everything he says is reasonable in its own right, and quite relevant to the workplace issues that are the actual focus of the memo.

    Maybe the relevance issue is the key to victory. It is perfectly reasonable, in its own right, for a man to desire sexual relations with his female coworker. It is perhaps unreasonable to believe that she should be required to hear about this as a condition of her employment. So I think there is some reasonable basis for "hostile environment" laws, in some form. Likewise, I'll even grant that, in certain cases, promulgation of objectively true "hatefacts" can create a "hostile environment". Suppose a white employee repeatedly, and without provocation, mentions to a black employee that the average IQ for blacks is however much lower than that for whites. If the white guy is bringing this up repeatedly for no work-related purpose, then this is arguably meant as intimidation, and the black guy has the law on his side, and I think somewhat reasonably so. But in Damore's memo, so far as I can tell, all of the claims that the haters object to are not only objectively true, but they are directly related to the workplace issues that Damore is aiming to address.

    We haven't heard much about Dr. Dao recently, have we? He shut up quick. Money does things. Eight figures, I say. Google's lawyers should make a BIG offer this week, contingent on total silence. That'll secure time for the big boys to make somewhat better decisions on what to do with their google investments.

    He is not using company time or resources to spout views on unrelated matters,

    Apparently he wrote it on a 12 hour flight to China.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Even if he did use company time does it matter?. He did perhaps use some company time one way or another. Just sitting at his cube pissed off perhaps for hours to sum up the motivation to kill his Google/ Corporate IT career.

    Who cares? Apparently Damore still earned "superb" reviews, only 2-3% of employees do that.
  22. donut says:
    @donut
    This is what that POS sent me :

    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15d996d35903a7a0

    and when I declined the little fuck sent me this :

    https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/15d9e7ad3f1c89d2

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huV0LuW_1VM

    Who can I turn to ?

    You are not my friends just acquaintances and yet not for a dollar would I cheat any one of you . Not a stranger nor an enemy would I cheat any one of you . I may not believe in a God but I fear the judgement of God . As I have said before “better to die in a noble lost cause than triumph in an unworthy cause “. I have more than enough of a burden of sins ,

    I’m glad that what ever sins I might die with that is not one of them . My soul is burdened enough .

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    Please take heed my friends the interest on our sins grows and grows .
  23. Achilles says:
    @Anonymous
    I think that you are missing the core legal strategy here (which I discuss in a long comment as Anonymous that is not yet approved as I write this).
    James is not going to fight this on the grounds that he is being penalized for his political viewpoint. He is fighting this on "labor relations" law. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" issues that he raises in the memo are, in his view, related to his "workplace conditions". So far as I can tell, you are legally protected from retaliation for raising discussion of workplace conditions. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you are legally protected even if you are factually wrong. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" factual claims that James makes are actually true. This can be legally established in court with some number of reasonably prestigious expert witnesses. So he is well within his legal rights to raise these factual points, in a workplace setting, in a discussion of workplace issues. He is NOT fighting a political viewpoint discrimination case. He is fighting for the ESTABLISHED right to initiate discussion of workplace conditions without retaliation.


    Sundar was on vacation and didn't think this through!

    I agree that the main argument on behalf of James will be retaliation for discussing workplace conditions with co-workers.

    If there were to be a favorable decision for James under a theory of hostile environment for political viewpoints, however, it would likely be under Dan Eaton’s second point above, and would have repercussions in California.

    So far as I can tell, ALL of the “controversial” factual claims that James makes are actually true.

    We’re getting to a point where truth is not a defense in this kind of thing. Certainly if the court rules that James’s statements on human biodiversity between the sexes are separable from his discussion on workplace conditions, the fact that these “hatefacts” are true would probably not prevent a court from deciding that it was reasonable for Goolag to suppress them as tending to create a hostile environment against women and fire him.

    For example if Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner were working for me, and I kept saying things like “say dude, did you finish that thing you’re working on yet” or “hey man, how about finish up the coffee break and get back to work” (in other words, referring to him as a male), we are getting to the point that the fact that I could prove that every cell in his body has a Y chromosome would not be a defense for my refusing to speak of him as a woman.

    Read More
  24. @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    That’s a good question.

    I listen to the Three Martini Lunch podcast from Ricochet, and Jim Geraghty brought up this exact point. He concluded that CK should not be blackballed by the NFL for expressing his political views, although he might be deserving of some sanction. It’s a brief daily news summary podcast, so Geraghty didn’t develop his stance beyond this.

    It’s a complicated issue. The NFL is an entertainment provider, so it’s arguable that CK was knowingly harming his employer’s core product by engaging in extraneous displays of a purely personal nature that distracted from that product’s attractiveness to potential customers. It’s not clear that Damore’s memo was intended to distract from or potentially harm Google’s business; you might even argue that he was trying to get his employer’s business back on track.

    It will be interesting to see how both cases move forward.

    Read More
  25. donut says:
    @donut
    Who can I turn to ?

    You are not my friends just acquaintances and yet not for a dollar would I cheat any one of you . Not a stranger nor an enemy would I cheat any one of you . I may not believe in a God but I fear the judgement of God . As I have said before "better to die in a noble lost cause than triumph in an unworthy cause ". I have more than enough of a burden of sins ,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3GIQ86eu6c

    I'm glad that what ever sins I might die with that is not one of them . My soul is burdened enough .

    Please take heed my friends the interest on our sins grows and grows .

    Read More
  26. @Boethiuss
    According to Instapundit, Damore lawyered up even before he published the essay/memo/whatever.

    My gut feeling is that he has the possibility of a case, but it's tough sledding to make a reality of one, especially if Google goes for a scorched-earth type of defense (which I'm not completely convinced that they'll do). But the important thing is that in spite of Mr Damore's salutary effect, we've already lost to a significant extent having got this far.

    What we need is some kind of Silicon Valley unicorn analog to the Hays Code, and we're not within miles of getting it.

    According to Instapundit, Damore lawyered up even before he published the essay/memo/whatever.

    This nicely explains why his memo seemed so pro-diversity. For all we know, this guy might be alt-right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ussr andy

    For all we know, this guy might be alt-right.
     
    or alt-left : ) "democratization of the workplace" has been a left-wing cause for a while. it's just all we hear are SJW posers.
    I totally understand Muzzies (well sort of) when they say their religion has been hijacked by people who don't represent it.
  27. @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    There’s no suggestion that his actual job performance was sub-par, unlike Colin ‘Interception’ Kaepernick who did not have a good season.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Paul Jolliffe
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kaepernick did not start protesting the National Anthem until AFTER HE LEARNED HE WAS NO LONGER THE STARTING QB!

    IOW, everything about the NFL was fine as long as he was on top, but once coaches decided he wasn't that good after all, why it was time for Kaepernick to stick it to the man!
  28. anonguy says:
    @Anonymous
    I think that you are missing the core legal strategy here (which I discuss in a long comment as Anonymous that is not yet approved as I write this).
    James is not going to fight this on the grounds that he is being penalized for his political viewpoint. He is fighting this on "labor relations" law. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" issues that he raises in the memo are, in his view, related to his "workplace conditions". So far as I can tell, you are legally protected from retaliation for raising discussion of workplace conditions. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you are legally protected even if you are factually wrong. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" factual claims that James makes are actually true. This can be legally established in court with some number of reasonably prestigious expert witnesses. So he is well within his legal rights to raise these factual points, in a workplace setting, in a discussion of workplace issues. He is NOT fighting a political viewpoint discrimination case. He is fighting for the ESTABLISHED right to initiate discussion of workplace conditions without retaliation.


    Sundar was on vacation and didn't think this through!

    You are completely right. His paper is so on message in an obviously legally defensible manner, it isn’t an accident. As they say, when you see a turtle on a fencepost, you gotta ask how did it get there.

    It is all too tightly crafted to just be innocent happenstance thing, just like various civil rights events like Rosa Parks, etc, were carefully planned/vetted in advance.

    If he were just some aspergy nerd rambling on an internal forum, his document would have had some digressions, etc, but it is spot on.

    Read More
  29. CK says:
    @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    The difference would be how many interceptions Damore threw and how many losses they led to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Kaepernick was a little unlucky last year to go 1-10 in his starts. He wasn't as bad as he'd been the season before when he lost his starting job. But still ...

    It used to be that athletes would, say, demand to be called by their Islamic names or something else self-indulgent when they were on top of the world, like Muhammad Ali and Kareem. But Kaepernick had previously made himself unpopular by getting worse ever since his rookie year.

  30. The Gizmodo crew that have been leading the anti-Damore charge have been given emails showing that, at a Harvard grad school retreat, Damore participated in a skit that was criticized for being sexist. Apparently Damore helped write and perform the skit, which included a masturbation joke that ‘fell flat’ [sic].

    The story is here: LINK

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    It's said that at summer camp when he was 8, Damore called a girl a "poopy face". In addition, he once was reportedly seen to double dip his potato chips.

    It's standard SJW M.O. that when you doxx a wrecker you must assassinate their entire character. He's a no-goodnik and has always been a no-goodnik. He must be cast out!

    , @Pericles
    This just in: Wankers decry masturbation.
  31. @CK
    The difference would be how many interceptions Damore threw and how many losses they led to.

    Kaepernick was a little unlucky last year to go 1-10 in his starts. He wasn’t as bad as he’d been the season before when he lost his starting job. But still …

    It used to be that athletes would, say, demand to be called by their Islamic names or something else self-indulgent when they were on top of the world, like Muhammad Ali and Kareem. But Kaepernick had previously made himself unpopular by getting worse ever since his rookie year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Kaepernick's been Krugmanned*.

    * - dominated by a radical woman with deleterious results on one's professional performance.

    He's not getting picked up because he's insisting on starter money/opportunities without starter performance on the field. The radicalization is doing it's usual job of clouding the self-awareness needed for adjusted expectations.
    , @anonymous
    Yes, but he is on a relatively short list of active QBs that have led a team to a SB. The others are Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Russell Wilson, and Cam Newton.

    Besides Brady, each of these QBs, especially Manning and Flacco, have had extended periods of below average play since their last SB appearance. It hasn't diminished their value. In fact if any one of these men were released on waivers by their current team, multiple teams would immediately claim them.

    This is because, as you pointed out in your critique of Gladwell, there are very few men who have actually demonstrated the ability to play QB at a high level in the NFL.

    The problem for Damore, however, is that his relative value to Google (650 billion market cap) as an engineer is the same as Kaepernick's value to an NFL team as the face of the franchise- zilch.

    As you well know, life as a free speech warrior and noticer of things, can be expensive.
    , @CK
    In 2016, he received $14,300,000 for 1 win.
    http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/colin-kaepernick-7751/cash-earnings/
    A bit unlucky is not exactly how I would define that cash income level.
  32. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    The main difference, and chief irony of this case, is that James Damore is arguing that his employer’s hiring practices are basically fair.

    He’s probably the first guy in history to be fired because his bosses aren’t discriminatory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack D
    He's at least #2 , the first being Larry Summers.

    Or maybe your "bosses" really have their own bosses.
  33. Jack D says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    My 3 to your 1 he was let go with a rich severance package and an NDA.
    I could be wrong, but that's your 1, my 3.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/fired-google-employee-says-hes-exploring-all-possible-legal-remedies-2017-8

    If he had settled then he wouldn’t be “exploring legal remedies”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reiner Tor
    As others have pointed out, it looks like he lawyered up before writing the piece.
    , @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    I'm not sure.
    I've been watching this closely looking for data that hints this way or that and at first I noted what you are referring to, but the more I see the guy talk the more I think he did what he did in no small part out of being a pure neophyte who very literally doesn't understand the soup he's been swimming in.

    Remember Ashley Dupré? She was "considering her legal options" too. Remember how after the Spitzer thing broke some porn group had pictures or videos of her and she had even hired an attorney who went on national TV to talk about how they were going to go after them, and then turned out: so sorry, she signed this little doc you see.

    He comes across as a smart young man, who really may not know what he's already signed. If he signed nothing and he's scott-free to sue I'll buy Mr. Sailer 3 "diverse" Starbucks products next time I'm in Cali, but I'm waiting for the evidence. The most likely "no deal" case would be if Google's attorneys convinced themselves and the execs that he could be dismissed without a severance and NDA on the basis of him signing the Code of Conduct and the possibility this could be construed as a violation.
    I consider that a long shot though. First - it isn't bulletproof anyway, Code of Conduct has to conform with NLRB and Google's lawyers should know that. Second - this is just too easy for Google to make go-away with money and Google is swimming in that. Failing to give him severance rises to almost criminal stupidity.
  34. Muse says:
    @Anonymous
    I think that you are missing the core legal strategy here (which I discuss in a long comment as Anonymous that is not yet approved as I write this).
    James is not going to fight this on the grounds that he is being penalized for his political viewpoint. He is fighting this on "labor relations" law. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" issues that he raises in the memo are, in his view, related to his "workplace conditions". So far as I can tell, you are legally protected from retaliation for raising discussion of workplace conditions. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you are legally protected even if you are factually wrong. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" factual claims that James makes are actually true. This can be legally established in court with some number of reasonably prestigious expert witnesses. So he is well within his legal rights to raise these factual points, in a workplace setting, in a discussion of workplace issues. He is NOT fighting a political viewpoint discrimination case. He is fighting for the ESTABLISHED right to initiate discussion of workplace conditions without retaliation.


    Sundar was on vacation and didn't think this through!

    The brilliance of this memo is that it causes a conflict between labor law, (think Unionization and the NLRB) and anti-discrimination law (think sexual harassment, discrimination in hiring EEOC)

    This case is perfectly structured to force google to justify its firing of an employee exercising his rights regarding a protected activity (discussing working conditions – NLRB)and its oppressive diversity policies, which they will argue exists to avoid creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities from an EEO perspective.

    The workplace issue being raised just happens to be the oppressive Diversity/PC policies of the company that restrict any discussion of what portion of the company’s lower ration of women and minorities in the company’s technical workforce compared to white men is due to genetics or environment.

    One can only hope that the discussion about the cause of this underrepresentation of women and minorities continue to be discussed should this case go to court, as it relates directly to the EEOCs four-fifths employment discrimination test.

    The four-fifths rule prescribes that a selection rate for any group (classified by race, sexual orientation or ethnicity) that is less than four-fifths of that for the group with the highest rate constitutes evidence of adverse impact (also called ‘disparate impact’), that is, discriminatory effects on a protected group.

    This is called a prima facia case if discrimination. An employer will be found guilty of discrimination if its hiring practices fail the four-fifths rule. A defense for the four fifths rule is that the application of bona-fide job requirements used to screen out employees caused the improper ratio.

    [MORE]

    Employers have as of yet been loath to argue that women and other minorities, when evaluated for a position typically don’t meet the job requirements at the same rate, and that is why they are “underrepresented”. They avoid this argument by requiring technical degrees.

    When completing OFCCP affirmative action plans, which nearly all large companies must do, the four-fifths rule test is applied against the availability of the candidates theoretically available for the job, not the general population. This allows the employer to simply say there are not enough candidates from protected groups.

    This is why there is such a huge push for STEM career because there are not proportional numbers of women and minorities graduating with STEM degrees when compared to white men.

    HBD’ers would suggest that this is because all traits are normally distributed and vary by gender and race. Thus fewer women and minorities are able and/or interested in doing these jobs. Employers don’t want to argue this because they don’t want to get egg on their face, and because the HBD argument to employment law would be a new and very unwelcome theory in employment law in the courts. Many SJWs would argue white men caused disparate impact through centuries of oppression.

    The beauty of arguing this case in the ninth circuit versus another circuit is that one can imagine the tortured logic that the US Supreme Court will have to review.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for describing the four-fifths rule. I had not been aware of that. I wonder how sensitive they are to statistical noise in small samples.

    For a bit more info (mainly an example for the innumerate) see https://www.prevuehr.com/resources/insights/adverse-impact-analysis-four-fifths-rule/

    Perhaps it is time to check Google's records on this? Have they been so eager to hire the "underrepresented" that they may have erred in too high a rate relative to the "overrepresented"?

    I wonder how much gaming goes on in being careful about offering interviews depending on the stats (e.g. interview too many white men and you are at risk of not hiring enough).

    This sounds a lot like the kind of thing that would be discussed at that unrecorded diversity summit Damore mentions.
  35. @donut
    Who has the law on his side ? I have good reason to believe that my half bother is trying to cheat me out of my share of the half million $ property that my mother owns in Bequia . And fool that I was I trusted my own father who was worth a couple of million and yet he cheated me out of a measly two or three thousand dollars worth of furniture . As all of you may know I am an asshole . But that doesn't mean that I don't deserve what my mother left to me . And now I find that my friends Carol , Elisa and Michelle and Cecil have my interests at heart . I don't understand . If it came down to it I would rather become homeless than cheat even a stranger out of his due . I don't believe in a God , but I do believe in justice . Please someone tell me that I am wrong to be a fool and trust in justice that God promises us .

    We’ve missed you. The soap opera is somewhat novel. Steve often laments his ideas for scripts that will never be produced. Perhaps you two could collaborate on your autobiographical telenovela….

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    I envy you that you are so immune from the treachery of loved ones.
  36. @Achilles
    Sundar's memo about "Our words matter" was undoubtedly written, for the most part, by a California employment lawyer.

    The memo tried to narrow the reason for the firing down to something legally defensible, and disclaim as a purpose legally impermissible reasons:

    So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics
     
    The statements that were the basis of the firing, according to Sundar's memo, appear to be statements discussing biological differences between the two sexes (now called "genders" in place of the more accurate and precise word "sexes"):

    portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

     

    I'm not sure that James's case is all that strong on the merits, under either federal or California law, if Sundar's explanation withstands scrutiny.

    However, as a practical matter I expect Google to settle with him for a substantial sum, for the reason that if a lawsuit proceeds James will be entitled to discovery of internal Google communications having to do with his termination.

    Imagine the outraged emails and text messages that must have been flying around Google management among these arrogant SJW wannabe-Red Guard culture cleansers!

    It may be quite difficult in light of that record to defend that the termination was based on a permissible and not an impermissible reason.

    Of course, if James were to go to court and actually get a favorable decision that imposing a hostile environment for political viewpoints is against California labor law, imagine what that would mean for colleges and universities up and down the California coast!

    The author had a right to express their views on those topics.

    If this piece was written by a lawyer, it’s a shame Google, Inc. cannot afford counsel capable of making subjects and verbs agree in formal memoranda….

    Read More
    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Jack D
    Naw, you're just not with the times. "Their" is the new all purpose non-gendered pronoun. Now in this case, "the author" was a specific person who clearly identified as male, but it's a reflexive tic - you see "the author" and automatically think, well authors can be either male or female so I'll use a non-gendered pronoun. If you say the author...his views, then you are a sexist pig because you are assuming that all authors are male.
  37. @Jack D
    http://www.businessinsider.com/fired-google-employee-says-hes-exploring-all-possible-legal-remedies-2017-8

    If he had settled then he wouldn't be "exploring legal remedies".

    As others have pointed out, it looks like he lawyered up before writing the piece.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Probably, but there are a lot of good articles about employment law, so an intelligent layman can figure it out.
  38. @cliff arroyo
    There's no suggestion that his actual job performance was sub-par, unlike Colin 'Interception' Kaepernick who did not have a good season.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Kaepernick did not start protesting the National Anthem until AFTER HE LEARNED HE WAS NO LONGER THE STARTING QB!

    IOW, everything about the NFL was fine as long as he was on top, but once coaches decided he wasn’t that good after all, why it was time for Kaepernick to stick it to the man!

    Read More
  39. @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    CK is an ungrateful dick who isn’t very good?

    Read More
  40. James Damore looks like John Updike. In particular, both Damore and Updike have rodent snouts that are highly displeasing. I won’t read John Updike because I figure that honker would deform any artistic beauty and turn it into something unpleasant.

    John Updike:

    https://twitter.com/Oggitocom/status/885117973484249088

    I love President Trump for his attacks on the ruling class of both the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. President Trump had the guts and brains to directly confront the evil scum in the Bush and Clinton organized crime families. But, I love President Trump for his attacks on the corporate media the most.

    Google should not be spared by President Trump when it comes to attacking the corporate media. Google has de-monetized and de-platformed many political leaders on its Youtube internet site. De-monetization refers to Google refusing to allow advertising on certain videos on Youtube when they don’t conform to politically correct parameters set up by Google. De-Platforming is when Google uses all kinds of methods to hide videos or hinder people’s ability to find and access certain videos from contributors on Youtube.

    President Trump must work with Attorney General Jeff Sessions to smash the monopoly power that Google has used to stifle dissent on political matters in the United States. Google has too much media, financial and political power. Google must be destroyed in order to bring freedom of speech back to America.

    Read More
  41. Jack D says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    The Gizmodo crew that have been leading the anti-Damore charge have been given emails showing that, at a Harvard grad school retreat, Damore participated in a skit that was criticized for being sexist. Apparently Damore helped write and perform the skit, which included a masturbation joke that 'fell flat' [sic].

    The story is here: LINK

    It’s said that at summer camp when he was 8, Damore called a girl a “poopy face”. In addition, he once was reportedly seen to double dip his potato chips.

    It’s standard SJW M.O. that when you doxx a wrecker you must assassinate their entire character. He’s a no-goodnik and has always been a no-goodnik. He must be cast out!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Njguy73

    It’s said that at summer camp when he was 8, Damore called a girl a “poopy face”. In addition, he once was reportedly seen to double dip his potato chips.
     
    He wrote another memo: "Bad Stuff 'Bout Google Execs."

    "Larry Page borrow James' soap, never bring it back..Sergey Brin berry berry bad card player..."
  42. Karl says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don't know.

    https://twitter.com/walterolson/status/894910903673552897

    A Jujitsu move by the Trump administration, if it were interested, would be to partner with the EU in cutting Google and Facebook down to size. If Standard Oil was too big to be one company, those two are too. Split off Google search and regulate it as a utility. Let the rest of Alphabet do what it wants without that cash spigot.

    Maybe break Facebook up into regional companies, like Standard Oil or Ma Bell, and regulate it as a utility as well.

    no one loves Facebook corporation; no one loves Google corporation.

    who will be the first to win elected office by noisily running against them?

    Read More
  43. Jack D says:
    @Anonymous
    I think that you are missing the core legal strategy here (which I discuss in a long comment as Anonymous that is not yet approved as I write this).
    James is not going to fight this on the grounds that he is being penalized for his political viewpoint. He is fighting this on "labor relations" law. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" issues that he raises in the memo are, in his view, related to his "workplace conditions". So far as I can tell, you are legally protected from retaliation for raising discussion of workplace conditions. Indeed, so far as I can tell, you are legally protected even if you are factually wrong. So far as I can tell, ALL of the "controversial" factual claims that James makes are actually true. This can be legally established in court with some number of reasonably prestigious expert witnesses. So he is well within his legal rights to raise these factual points, in a workplace setting, in a discussion of workplace issues. He is NOT fighting a political viewpoint discrimination case. He is fighting for the ESTABLISHED right to initiate discussion of workplace conditions without retaliation.


    Sundar was on vacation and didn't think this through!

    The problem for Damore is this: If he said 20 things that were legally protected and 1 thing that crossed the line, they can still fire him for that one thing. That is clearly what Google is trying to set up.

    That being said, it appears that Damore was aware of this beforehand and that Google was also aware of the weakness of their case but was under such overwhelming pressure from SJWs that they had to cast Damore overboard to make the pain go away.

    If later on when the firestorm has died down, they have to pay him a rich settlement, hey they’ve got plenty of money – a couple of million to them is like a penny to you and I. Maybe they even fight this in court /before the NLRB to show the SJWs that they are really serious about punishing sexist evildoers and if they lose, well that’s not their fault – they tried to do the right thing. And they might not lose – the bureaucracy and courts in Cal. are not exactly loaded with right wing sympathizers.

    Or else, more likely, they drag this out as long as possible so that the public loses interest and to see whether Damore has enough legal/financial resources to withstand the onslaught of motions and when it comes time for them to produce all the embarrassing emails from the shrill SJWs at Google demanding Damore’s head on a plate, they settle. Meanwhile Damore’s life has been consumed in the legal process for years and 90% of the employers in S.V. would not touch him with a 10 foot pole, so even by winning he still loses. So no one else with any common sense will ever want to write a memo like that again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Some at Google also demanded anyone who says Damore should not be fired should themselves be fired. It's amazing really how invincible they feel. This is Kulakization.
  44. Mr. Anon says:
    @Selvar
    Good. Make the bastards live by their own rules. None of this "principled libertarian/ muh freedom of association" nonsense. Whenever possible, use the full force of the managerial state against multicultural leftists and their institutions the way they use it against us. Companies must learn to have a real fear of legal liability whenever they fire those with right wing or generally politically incorrect views. That should make for some positive institutional change in our direction. At the very least, it will level out the playing field.

    Good. Make the bastards live by their own rules. None of this “principled libertarian/ muh freedom of association” nonsense. Whenever possible, use the full force of the managerial state against multicultural leftists and their institutions the way they use it against us.

    Rules for Radicals. It’s not just for leftists anymore.

    Read More
  45. Jack D says:
    @Autochthon

    The author had a right to express their views on those topics.
     
    If this piece was written by a lawyer, it's a shame Google, Inc. cannot afford counsel capable of making subjects and verbs agree in formal memoranda....

    Naw, you’re just not with the times. “Their” is the new all purpose non-gendered pronoun. Now in this case, “the author” was a specific person who clearly identified as male, but it’s a reflexive tic – you see “the author” and automatically think, well authors can be either male or female so I’ll use a non-gendered pronoun. If you say the author…his views, then you are a sexist pig because you are assuming that all authors are male.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clark Westwood
    I still edit out the singular "they" (and "their" and "them") in writing that people do for me. But I know from discussions with millennials that it's a losing battle. RIP.
  46. songbird says:

    There is a saying that applies here: “In the Halls of Justice, the only justice is in the halls.”

    Read More
  47. Thea says:

    It wasn’t even anti-diversity either. No where did he say it was bad to hire people from different backgrounds.

    Read More
  48. Thea says:
    @Jack D
    The problem for Damore is this: If he said 20 things that were legally protected and 1 thing that crossed the line, they can still fire him for that one thing. That is clearly what Google is trying to set up.

    That being said, it appears that Damore was aware of this beforehand and that Google was also aware of the weakness of their case but was under such overwhelming pressure from SJWs that they had to cast Damore overboard to make the pain go away.

    If later on when the firestorm has died down, they have to pay him a rich settlement, hey they've got plenty of money - a couple of million to them is like a penny to you and I. Maybe they even fight this in court /before the NLRB to show the SJWs that they are really serious about punishing sexist evildoers and if they lose, well that's not their fault - they tried to do the right thing. And they might not lose - the bureaucracy and courts in Cal. are not exactly loaded with right wing sympathizers.

    Or else, more likely, they drag this out as long as possible so that the public loses interest and to see whether Damore has enough legal/financial resources to withstand the onslaught of motions and when it comes time for them to produce all the embarrassing emails from the shrill SJWs at Google demanding Damore's head on a plate, they settle. Meanwhile Damore's life has been consumed in the legal process for years and 90% of the employers in S.V. would not touch him with a 10 foot pole, so even by winning he still loses. So no one else with any common sense will ever want to write a memo like that again.

    Some at Google also demanded anyone who says Damore should not be fired should themselves be fired. It’s amazing really how invincible they feel. This is Kulakization.

    Read More
  49. L Woods says:
    @Barnard
    I just read another article touting the neurodiverse angle and hope he doesn't pursue that. The last thing we need is to have Aspies classified as another class of protected victims in employment, plus that was the kind of thing he was arguing against.

    Why not? They have an infinitely more valid claim to legitimate victimhood and discrimination than women and NAMs do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    Because it encourages more people to seek out ways to declare victimhood and oppression instead of teaching them to take responsibility for their choices in life. While this would help Damore in the short term, it contributes to the long term problem instead reversing this trend. It would be one more group people have to tiptoe around to make sure they don't offend for fear of losing your job. I'm sure some will argue that eventually this will cause the whole victimhood racket to collapse, but I don't see that happening soon.
  50. Burdell says:
    @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    It would be a better comparison if Kaepernick were criticizing the NFL for hiding CTE research.

    Read More
  51. Pericles says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    The Gizmodo crew that have been leading the anti-Damore charge have been given emails showing that, at a Harvard grad school retreat, Damore participated in a skit that was criticized for being sexist. Apparently Damore helped write and perform the skit, which included a masturbation joke that 'fell flat' [sic].

    The story is here: LINK

    This just in: Wankers decry masturbation.

    Read More
  52. My guess is that the mega-billionaires who run Google will pay out an eight-figure settlement to this guy, then Virtue Signal about it!

    Read More
  53. ussr andy says:
    @reiner Tor

    According to Instapundit, Damore lawyered up even before he published the essay/memo/whatever.
     
    This nicely explains why his memo seemed so pro-diversity. For all we know, this guy might be alt-right.

    For all we know, this guy might be alt-right.

    or alt-left : ) “democratization of the workplace” has been a left-wing cause for a while. it’s just all we hear are SJW posers.
    I totally understand Muzzies (well sort of) when they say their religion has been hijacked by people who don’t represent it.

    Read More
  54. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    ‘Hostile Environment’ is a very loose term.

    If someone does something overtly nasty, okay.

    But ideas are ideas, and Damore put them forth in civilized manner.

    This PC is not only hostile but repressive.

    It sends a big chill on free thought and civil discussion.

    Read More
  55. Jack D says:

    This headline puts it succinctly:

    Google is more afraid of liberal outrage than federal law

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-is-more-afraid-of-liberal-outrage-than-federal-law/article/2630905

    That makes sense as an economic decision – even worst case scenario the most it will have to pay Damore for wrongful termination is pocket change for Google. They could pay him treble damages based upon his expected future earnings for the rest of his life and it still wouldn’t mean diddly squat to them.

    But having the liberal media complex turn its rage toward you can be costly. I was under the impression that Mizzou enrollment was damaged because they revealed themselves to be craven racial appeasers who folded like a cheap suit. But the real damage to their reputation was actually on the left – blacks and leftists don’t want to attend a school that they read about as being filled with “racists”. As Mizzou shows, if you manage these things wrong, you can piss off EVERYONE on both sides. It seems to me that Google is doing the same thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    That is insightful. I wonder how those risks compare to running afoul of a Trump administration NLRB.
    , @Lot
    I agree with this. Ballpark Damore will probably walk away with about 2.5 million in settlement and have to pay about 55% of it to his lawyer and in taxes.

    Google normally would try to negotiate a NDA and exit package in such a situation, but they needed him gone ASAP to appease the SJW.
  56. Dee says:
    @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    “What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?”

    Tats, big Afro, probably 7 inches in height, 4.4 in 40 yard sprint, wasn’t fired, still admired by SJW’s, more tats….LOL

    Similarities; both are/will be millionaires, won’t be able to get a job in their chosen field, act as warning signs to others in same fields….I’m sure there are dozens more….

    Read More
  57. Boethiuss says:
    @Anonymous
    I've just reread the whole memo. I suspect I'm not the only one that didn't read it too closely upon first perusal, since so much of it is directly about Google and didn't seem to concern me, and moreover it didn't really seem so provocative to me. But these elements are what make it much more interesting now.

    The overt focus of the memo is entirely on opening up discussion regarding Google's internal practices, practices that Damore deems harmful. He is not using company time or resources to spout views on unrelated matters, but rather to raise issues that he regards as crucial to the functioning of the company. This seems to render the memo not a "free speech" issue, but a labor relations issue.

    Note that the NY Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html) says the Damore reports, in an email he sent them, that he filed a NLRB complaint before his firing:

    Before being fired, Mr. Damore said, he had submitted a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board claiming that Google’s upper management was “misrepresenting and shaming me in order to silence my complaints.” He added that it was “illegal to retaliate” against an N.L.R.B. charge.
     
    So it seems that Damore may be quite astute.

    As for the rather non-provocative nature of the memo, this seems crucial too. There are pretty much no factual assertions that are not fairly obviously true. He is extremely careful to render generalizations as statistical generalizations, and to refrain from endorsing any single cause for the truth of the statistical generalization he mentions.

    So far as I can tell, there is nothing in the memo that, taken literally, would "threaten" a reasonable person. What threatens some people is that the very act of promulgating the memo marks him as someone who will not submit to their fashionable orthodoxy. But it seems that the law, as it is currently written, does not support them.

    I suspect that the basis for Damore's case will be: 1) Google clearly fired him for trying to open discussion about harmful workplace practices, and 2) that there is no sound counter-argument that he himself was creating a "hostile work environment" since everything he says is reasonable in its own right, and quite relevant to the workplace issues that are the actual focus of the memo.

    Maybe the relevance issue is the key to victory. It is perfectly reasonable, in its own right, for a man to desire sexual relations with his female coworker. It is perhaps unreasonable to believe that she should be required to hear about this as a condition of her employment. So I think there is some reasonable basis for "hostile environment" laws, in some form. Likewise, I'll even grant that, in certain cases, promulgation of objectively true "hatefacts" can create a "hostile environment". Suppose a white employee repeatedly, and without provocation, mentions to a black employee that the average IQ for blacks is however much lower than that for whites. If the white guy is bringing this up repeatedly for no work-related purpose, then this is arguably meant as intimidation, and the black guy has the law on his side, and I think somewhat reasonably so. But in Damore's memo, so far as I can tell, all of the claims that the haters object to are not only objectively true, but they are directly related to the workplace issues that Damore is aiming to address.

    We haven't heard much about Dr. Dao recently, have we? He shut up quick. Money does things. Eight figures, I say. Google's lawyers should make a BIG offer this week, contingent on total silence. That'll secure time for the big boys to make somewhat better decisions on what to do with their google investments.

    So it seems that Damore may be quite astute.

    This seems right to me, which affects things in some important ways.

    Ie, his example is probably a user counter-Narrative for the alt-right, but Damore himself does not intend to be defined by that. That ought to be ok, but neither the Trump Administration or the alt-right in general has a lot of experience with this kind of cultural politics. The first time it’s clear that Damore has other fish to fry than white nationalism, he’ll a neocon cuck, blah, blah.

    Read More
  58. @Steve Sailer
    Kaepernick was a little unlucky last year to go 1-10 in his starts. He wasn't as bad as he'd been the season before when he lost his starting job. But still ...

    It used to be that athletes would, say, demand to be called by their Islamic names or something else self-indulgent when they were on top of the world, like Muhammad Ali and Kareem. But Kaepernick had previously made himself unpopular by getting worse ever since his rookie year.

    Kaepernick’s been Krugmanned*.

    * – dominated by a radical woman with deleterious results on one’s professional performance.

    He’s not getting picked up because he’s insisting on starter money/opportunities without starter performance on the field. The radicalization is doing it’s usual job of clouding the self-awareness needed for adjusted expectations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Other than she is a very pale black woman, do we know Mrs. Krugman is radical left? CK's girlfriend is a black Muslim in the media, so safe assumption there.
  59. @Jack D
    Naw, you're just not with the times. "Their" is the new all purpose non-gendered pronoun. Now in this case, "the author" was a specific person who clearly identified as male, but it's a reflexive tic - you see "the author" and automatically think, well authors can be either male or female so I'll use a non-gendered pronoun. If you say the author...his views, then you are a sexist pig because you are assuming that all authors are male.

    I still edit out the singular “they” (and “their” and “them”) in writing that people do for me. But I know from discussions with millennials that it’s a losing battle. RIP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    The clear deference in order to accommodate not just "male or female", which they can do with "him or her" but for the mentally ill "genderfluid" and "nonbinary" is what angers me the most about that construction.

    The fact that it has become common is a good example, I think, of how availability cascade can control the very language we use.
  60. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Steve Sailer
    Kaepernick was a little unlucky last year to go 1-10 in his starts. He wasn't as bad as he'd been the season before when he lost his starting job. But still ...

    It used to be that athletes would, say, demand to be called by their Islamic names or something else self-indulgent when they were on top of the world, like Muhammad Ali and Kareem. But Kaepernick had previously made himself unpopular by getting worse ever since his rookie year.

    Yes, but he is on a relatively short list of active QBs that have led a team to a SB. The others are Tom Brady, Aaron Rodgers, Ben Roethlisberger, Eli Manning, Drew Brees, Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Russell Wilson, and Cam Newton.

    Besides Brady, each of these QBs, especially Manning and Flacco, have had extended periods of below average play since their last SB appearance. It hasn’t diminished their value. In fact if any one of these men were released on waivers by their current team, multiple teams would immediately claim them.

    This is because, as you pointed out in your critique of Gladwell, there are very few men who have actually demonstrated the ability to play QB at a high level in the NFL.

    The problem for Damore, however, is that his relative value to Google (650 billion market cap) as an engineer is the same as Kaepernick’s value to an NFL team as the face of the franchise- zilch.

    As you well know, life as a free speech warrior and noticer of things, can be expensive.

    Read More
  61. scrivener3 says: • Website

    I agree he lawyered up before writing the memo. So why did he write it?

    He had a smart lawyer. Someone with some experience in the world would know the facts he cited are true, most women don’t want to code. Google’s programs are not designed to increase the number of women in their coding positions. The programs serve another purpose and the facts cited in his memo are irrelevant to the reasons for the policies.

    Rev Bacon in Bonfire agitated for more waiter jobs in high class NYC restaurants for his musclemen. They did not want to work as waiters, the Rev did not want to get them jobs. It was a shakedown operation.

    Women’s advocates want to shakedown Google into funding programs for women, which will be run by advocates for women, who will pay themselves and their friends with the funds provided by Google.

    But still, why did he write the memo? It won’t stop or slow down the shakedown. Was he just being clock boy? Recognizing that writing such a thing would metaphorically cause the police to come and handcuff him and then a big payoff?

    Read More
  62. @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    My 3 to your 1 he was let go with a rich severance package and an NDA.
    I could be wrong, but that's your 1, my 3.

    My 3 to your 1 he was let go with a rich severance package and an NDA.
    I could be wrong, but that’s your 1, my 3.

    Uh … where do I sign up? And how much of your money do I get to take?

    This wasn’t done with the eye toward Google saving money (directly), it was done as “ritual humiliation” in order to show that Google is fully “on-board”, fully SJW compliant. From the legal–employment law–perspective it was clearly unwise. But these techies are some combination of complete sniveling cowards and true believers so they did what they did anyway. Fealty’s a bitch.

    Again let’s set this up. We could say, both send money to Steve and he gets a share of my winnings? How much is the bet?

    Read More
  63. Isn’t “Tortuous interference with employment” a legal precept already?

    Numerous memos have surfaced of Google managers (and managers at other firms) crowing about how they fire (disemploy) political heretics and then go on to try to blackball them in the industry as a whole?

    For years, legal departments required their firms to stop providing anything to outsiders (including firms checking the references of new hires) about past employees beyond dates of employment and possibly job title.

    The emails and memos of these clowns crowing about trying to PREVENT future employment of past employees is a treasure-trove for civil suit discovery. I can imagine that once this floodgate is opened, literally hundreds of millions of dollars in damages will flow from Silicon Valley to SJW victims.

    Read More
  64. Jack D says:
    @anon
    The main difference, and chief irony of this case, is that James Damore is arguing that his employer's hiring practices are basically fair.

    He's probably the first guy in history to be fired because his bosses aren't discriminatory.

    He’s at least #2 , the first being Larry Summers.

    Or maybe your “bosses” really have their own bosses.

    Read More
  65. whorefinder says: • Website

    Affirmative action quotas and EEOC investigations are better than anti-trust to break up conglomorates and market-dominating organizations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @(((Owen)))
    What conservatives don't understand is that the energy and creativity of the US economy is driven by diversity.

    Forced diversity and SJW bureaucrats metastasize inside the management of giant companies creating market vulnerabilities and bad customer service. That opens up opportunities for faster and more efficient startups to do the job better, growing the economy.

    If the old giants were allowed to work as efficiently as possible, they'd block startups and crush competition from better competitors with their market power and publicity. The whole country would stagnate.

    It's much better to inject SJW cancer into every firm beyond a certain size and keep the economy vibrant.
  66. @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    Truth.

    But if you’re saying “right to hire and fire” or more broadly “freedom of association”, i’m all in.

    This “civil rights” crap of the last 50 where there’s an every growing list of officially approved whiners is a cancerous contentious evil. An evil that can only grow more contentious in a “diverse” and “multicultural” society.

    Basic freedom of association is a fundamental natural right. It was so basic the founders couldn’t even imagine it being violated–the state telling me who could go into my establishment? who to hire or fire? who to rent my lodgings to? So, not even imagining the mentality of people who would show up in America or the statist nightmare that would result, the founders didn’t include it in the Bill of Rights. Major blunder.

    Let people associate as they want. Fire those in touch with basic biological reality–fine. Have it in for white guys–fine. But also … not baking cakes for a couple butt banging fags. Not hiring women if you don’t want to–or only young cute ones to serve up drinks. Not hiring blacks if you don’t want to. Not inviting blacks or Jews into your country club. Or slapping quotas on Jews at your university. Or having a covenant to keep blacks out of your neighborhood. Or only hiring Evangelicals. Or only hiring Jews. Or not hiring old bald geezers like me. Or keeping Chinese or Mexicans or Muslims–or any foreigners at all–out of your nation. Fine, fine, fine, fine, fine, fine and fine. People should be free to associate how they want. That’s precisely what liberty actually is.

    Read More
  67. Barnard says:
    @L Woods
    Why not? They have an infinitely more valid claim to legitimate victimhood and discrimination than women and NAMs do.

    Because it encourages more people to seek out ways to declare victimhood and oppression instead of teaching them to take responsibility for their choices in life. While this would help Damore in the short term, it contributes to the long term problem instead reversing this trend. It would be one more group people have to tiptoe around to make sure they don’t offend for fear of losing your job. I’m sure some will argue that eventually this will cause the whole victimhood racket to collapse, but I don’t see that happening soon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    "Personal responsibility" is a largely fatuous concept that's only ever applied to cis-hetero white gentile males. It's a psychological coping mechanism for one's own powerlessness in the thrall of larger forces, and excuse for life's lottery winners and ladder climbers to elide their end of the social contract.
    , @Njguy73

    Because it encourages more people to seek out ways to declare victimhood and oppression instead of teaching them to take responsibility for their choices in life.
     
    Yes. Autism is an issue close to me, and I encourage those on the spectrum to shun victim-like thinking and to embrace opportunity-centered thinking.
  68. Barnard says:
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    My 3 to your 1 he was let go with a rich severance package and an NDA.
    I could be wrong, but that's your 1, my 3.

    He obviously didn’t sign an NDA as he is already giving interviews about it. I doubt he received any severance at all other than what he was owed for work through his last day of employment.

    Read More
  69. res says:
    @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    That’s a softball. Let’s see:
    - Kaepernick took an exceedingly public stance. Damore’s memo was a private internal measure which someone else made public.
    - Damore’s memo was fact based and written with the intent to improve the working environment. Kaepernick’s opinions were at best just that and his actions took the form of protest.
    - Damore’s memo was addressing issues with Google policy that were arguably illegal and are the subject of a formal NLRB complaint.

    Is that enough?

    And for a non-relevant difference:
    - The SJWs championed Kaepernick and demonized Damore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achilles

    Kaepernick took an exceedingly public stance. Damore’s memo was a private internal measure which someone else made public.
     
    To expand upon this point:

    In Kaepernick's case, he refuses to participate properly, in the view of many team organizations, in what is a part of the televised public performance by the NFL in the stadium, the opening ceremony in which the teams stand for the national anthem. Some like Jeff Fisher and Jerry Jones have been very open that they expect their players to be properly dressed in uniform and standing as a team for this part of the public event.

    An analogy for Damore would be if Google had a slate of speakers lined up to speak at a public conference, including Damore, to advocate for more women programmers in the tech industry, and Damore decided to go rogue and use his speaking time to advocate for fewer women programmers, contrary to Google's official position they were taking at the conference.

    On the other hand, in Damore's case, he was advocating a position internally to other Google employees, and arguing for a change in how Google approaches the question of women programmers.

    An analogy for Kaepernick would be if he were sitting in the cafeteria with other football players during a break in practice and spouting off about how the team should support BLM. Or if he went internally to management and suggested that the whole football team come out of the tunnel wearing hoodies to honor Trayvon Martin, and management told him no.

  70. res says:
    @Achilles
    Sundar's memo about "Our words matter" was undoubtedly written, for the most part, by a California employment lawyer.

    The memo tried to narrow the reason for the firing down to something legally defensible, and disclaim as a purpose legally impermissible reasons:

    So to be clear again, many points raised in the memo — such as the portions criticizing Google’s trainings, questioning the role of ideology in the workplace, and debating whether programs for women and underserved groups are sufficiently open to all — are important topics. The author had a right to express their views on those topics
     
    The statements that were the basis of the firing, according to Sundar's memo, appear to be statements discussing biological differences between the two sexes (now called "genders" in place of the more accurate and precise word "sexes"):

    portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.

    To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK.

     

    I'm not sure that James's case is all that strong on the merits, under either federal or California law, if Sundar's explanation withstands scrutiny.

    However, as a practical matter I expect Google to settle with him for a substantial sum, for the reason that if a lawsuit proceeds James will be entitled to discovery of internal Google communications having to do with his termination.

    Imagine the outraged emails and text messages that must have been flying around Google management among these arrogant SJW wannabe-Red Guard culture cleansers!

    It may be quite difficult in light of that record to defend that the termination was based on a permissible and not an impermissible reason.

    Of course, if James were to go to court and actually get a favorable decision that imposing a hostile environment for political viewpoints is against California labor law, imagine what that would mean for colleges and universities up and down the California coast!

    if a lawsuit proceeds James will be entitled to discovery of internal Google communications having to do with his termination.

    There is also the issue of how the memo became public. Damore contends he sent it to an internal “skeptics group” and thinks that was the source (AFAICT). Was that communication supposed to be private? Surely violating privacy in a way that turns someone into the subject of an internet witch hunt is an issue?

    P.S. Search for skeptic in the Peterson interview transcript for my source for that assertion.

    Read More
  71. @Clark Westwood
    I still edit out the singular "they" (and "their" and "them") in writing that people do for me. But I know from discussions with millennials that it's a losing battle. RIP.

    The clear deference in order to accommodate not just “male or female”, which they can do with “him or her” but for the mentally ill “genderfluid” and “nonbinary” is what angers me the most about that construction.

    The fact that it has become common is a good example, I think, of how availability cascade can control the very language we use.

    Read More
  72. Scott Adams came up with the best legal justification for Damore’s firing. In essence, he argues for fiduciary responsibility to the stockholders.

    I admit the relative strength of his justification but describe its limits in the peculiar case of Google.

    https://www.facebook.com/jabowery/posts/10213848565399040?pnref=story

    Read More
  73. res says:
    @Muse
    The brilliance of this memo is that it causes a conflict between labor law, (think Unionization and the NLRB) and anti-discrimination law (think sexual harassment, discrimination in hiring EEOC)

    This case is perfectly structured to force google to justify its firing of an employee exercising his rights regarding a protected activity (discussing working conditions - NLRB)and its oppressive diversity policies, which they will argue exists to avoid creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities from an EEO perspective.

    The workplace issue being raised just happens to be the oppressive Diversity/PC policies of the company that restrict any discussion of what portion of the company's lower ration of women and minorities in the company's technical workforce compared to white men is due to genetics or environment.

    One can only hope that the discussion about the cause of this underrepresentation of women and minorities continue to be discussed should this case go to court, as it relates directly to the EEOCs four-fifths employment discrimination test.

    The four-fifths rule prescribes that a selection rate for any group (classified by race, sexual orientation or ethnicity) that is less than four-fifths of that for the group with the highest rate constitutes evidence of adverse impact (also called ‘disparate impact’), that is, discriminatory effects on a protected group.
     
    This is called a prima facia case if discrimination. An employer will be found guilty of discrimination if its hiring practices fail the four-fifths rule. A defense for the four fifths rule is that the application of bona-fide job requirements used to screen out employees caused the improper ratio.

    Employers have as of yet been loath to argue that women and other minorities, when evaluated for a position typically don't meet the job requirements at the same rate, and that is why they are "underrepresented". They avoid this argument by requiring technical degrees.

    When completing OFCCP affirmative action plans, which nearly all large companies must do, the four-fifths rule test is applied against the availability of the candidates theoretically available for the job, not the general population. This allows the employer to simply say there are not enough candidates from protected groups.

    This is why there is such a huge push for STEM career because there are not proportional numbers of women and minorities graduating with STEM degrees when compared to white men.

    HBD'ers would suggest that this is because all traits are normally distributed and vary by gender and race. Thus fewer women and minorities are able and/or interested in doing these jobs. Employers don't want to argue this because they don't want to get egg on their face, and because the HBD argument to employment law would be a new and very unwelcome theory in employment law in the courts. Many SJWs would argue white men caused disparate impact through centuries of oppression.

    The beauty of arguing this case in the ninth circuit versus another circuit is that one can imagine the tortured logic that the US Supreme Court will have to review.

    Thanks for describing the four-fifths rule. I had not been aware of that. I wonder how sensitive they are to statistical noise in small samples.

    For a bit more info (mainly an example for the innumerate) see https://www.prevuehr.com/resources/insights/adverse-impact-analysis-four-fifths-rule/

    Perhaps it is time to check Google’s records on this? Have they been so eager to hire the “underrepresented” that they may have erred in too high a rate relative to the “overrepresented”?

    I wonder how much gaming goes on in being careful about offering interviews depending on the stats (e.g. interview too many white men and you are at risk of not hiring enough).

    This sounds a lot like the kind of thing that would be discussed at that unrecorded diversity summit Damore mentions.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    In a country that is 70% white, their white percentage of employees is in the 50s. 4/5ths, anyone?
  74. Bel Riose says:
    @donut
    Who has the law on his side ? I have good reason to believe that my half bother is trying to cheat me out of my share of the half million $ property that my mother owns in Bequia . And fool that I was I trusted my own father who was worth a couple of million and yet he cheated me out of a measly two or three thousand dollars worth of furniture . As all of you may know I am an asshole . But that doesn't mean that I don't deserve what my mother left to me . And now I find that my friends Carol , Elisa and Michelle and Cecil have my interests at heart . I don't understand . If it came down to it I would rather become homeless than cheat even a stranger out of his due . I don't believe in a God , but I do believe in justice . Please someone tell me that I am wrong to be a fool and trust in justice that God promises us .

    On the standard 1-10 scale, how hot are Carol, Elisa and Michelle, respectively?

    Read More
    • Replies: @donut
    They are friends 2-3 on your scale I imagine and of course Cecil is a man . I sorry for you that you can mock true friendship so casually .
  75. res says:
    @Jack D
    This headline puts it succinctly:

    Google is more afraid of liberal outrage than federal law

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-is-more-afraid-of-liberal-outrage-than-federal-law/article/2630905

    That makes sense as an economic decision - even worst case scenario the most it will have to pay Damore for wrongful termination is pocket change for Google. They could pay him treble damages based upon his expected future earnings for the rest of his life and it still wouldn't mean diddly squat to them.

    But having the liberal media complex turn its rage toward you can be costly. I was under the impression that Mizzou enrollment was damaged because they revealed themselves to be craven racial appeasers who folded like a cheap suit. But the real damage to their reputation was actually on the left - blacks and leftists don't want to attend a school that they read about as being filled with "racists". As Mizzou shows, if you manage these things wrong, you can piss off EVERYONE on both sides. It seems to me that Google is doing the same thing.

    That is insightful. I wonder how those risks compare to running afoul of a Trump administration NLRB.

    Read More
  76. L Woods says:
    @Barnard
    Because it encourages more people to seek out ways to declare victimhood and oppression instead of teaching them to take responsibility for their choices in life. While this would help Damore in the short term, it contributes to the long term problem instead reversing this trend. It would be one more group people have to tiptoe around to make sure they don't offend for fear of losing your job. I'm sure some will argue that eventually this will cause the whole victimhood racket to collapse, but I don't see that happening soon.

    “Personal responsibility” is a largely fatuous concept that’s only ever applied to cis-hetero white gentile males. It’s a psychological coping mechanism for one’s own powerlessness in the thrall of larger forces, and excuse for life’s lottery winners and ladder climbers to elide their end of the social contract.

    Read More
  77. Knotnull says:

    “Does James Damore Have the Law on His Side?”

    No.

    Everyone knows that Google has the law on their side. How else could they have a market cap of 650Billion and yet give all their products away for free. And now that everyone’s been suckered in, the censorship goes full bore.

    Read More
  78. Achilles says:
    @res

    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?
     
    That's a softball. Let's see:
    - Kaepernick took an exceedingly public stance. Damore's memo was a private internal measure which someone else made public.
    - Damore's memo was fact based and written with the intent to improve the working environment. Kaepernick's opinions were at best just that and his actions took the form of protest.
    - Damore's memo was addressing issues with Google policy that were arguably illegal and are the subject of a formal NLRB complaint.

    Is that enough?

    And for a non-relevant difference:
    - The SJWs championed Kaepernick and demonized Damore.

    Kaepernick took an exceedingly public stance. Damore’s memo was a private internal measure which someone else made public.

    To expand upon this point:

    In Kaepernick’s case, he refuses to participate properly, in the view of many team organizations, in what is a part of the televised public performance by the NFL in the stadium, the opening ceremony in which the teams stand for the national anthem. Some like Jeff Fisher and Jerry Jones have been very open that they expect their players to be properly dressed in uniform and standing as a team for this part of the public event.

    An analogy for Damore would be if Google had a slate of speakers lined up to speak at a public conference, including Damore, to advocate for more women programmers in the tech industry, and Damore decided to go rogue and use his speaking time to advocate for fewer women programmers, contrary to Google’s official position they were taking at the conference.

    On the other hand, in Damore’s case, he was advocating a position internally to other Google employees, and arguing for a change in how Google approaches the question of women programmers.

    An analogy for Kaepernick would be if he were sitting in the cafeteria with other football players during a break in practice and spouting off about how the team should support BLM. Or if he went internally to management and suggested that the whole football team come out of the tunnel wearing hoodies to honor Trayvon Martin, and management told him no.

    Read More
  79. Lot says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don't know.

    https://twitter.com/walterolson/status/894910903673552897

    A Jujitsu move by the Trump administration, if it were interested, would be to partner with the EU in cutting Google and Facebook down to size. If Standard Oil was too big to be one company, those two are too. Split off Google search and regulate it as a utility. Let the rest of Alphabet do what it wants without that cash spigot.

    Maybe break Facebook up into regional companies, like Standard Oil or Ma Bell, and regulate it as a utility as well.

    Microsoft almost was broken up. The antitrust case judge was planing to split it into three companies: Windows, Office, and Internet. Then he gave a very inappropriate interview to a reporter and was bounced from the case.

    Breaking up facebook would be similar, the main site would remain but things like WhatsApp and instagram would be divested.

    Read More
  80. @res
    Thanks for describing the four-fifths rule. I had not been aware of that. I wonder how sensitive they are to statistical noise in small samples.

    For a bit more info (mainly an example for the innumerate) see https://www.prevuehr.com/resources/insights/adverse-impact-analysis-four-fifths-rule/

    Perhaps it is time to check Google's records on this? Have they been so eager to hire the "underrepresented" that they may have erred in too high a rate relative to the "overrepresented"?

    I wonder how much gaming goes on in being careful about offering interviews depending on the stats (e.g. interview too many white men and you are at risk of not hiring enough).

    This sounds a lot like the kind of thing that would be discussed at that unrecorded diversity summit Damore mentions.

    In a country that is 70% white, their white percentage of employees is in the 50s. 4/5ths, anyone?

    Read More
  81. Lot says:
    @Desiderius
    Kaepernick's been Krugmanned*.

    * - dominated by a radical woman with deleterious results on one's professional performance.

    He's not getting picked up because he's insisting on starter money/opportunities without starter performance on the field. The radicalization is doing it's usual job of clouding the self-awareness needed for adjusted expectations.

    Other than she is a very pale black woman, do we know Mrs. Krugman is radical left? CK’s girlfriend is a black Muslim in the media, so safe assumption there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    There was an article (late 90s I believe? likely in the Times) describing her influence on him. Spoiler: it wasn't amelioratory.
  82. Lot says:
    @Jack D
    This headline puts it succinctly:

    Google is more afraid of liberal outrage than federal law

    http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/google-is-more-afraid-of-liberal-outrage-than-federal-law/article/2630905

    That makes sense as an economic decision - even worst case scenario the most it will have to pay Damore for wrongful termination is pocket change for Google. They could pay him treble damages based upon his expected future earnings for the rest of his life and it still wouldn't mean diddly squat to them.

    But having the liberal media complex turn its rage toward you can be costly. I was under the impression that Mizzou enrollment was damaged because they revealed themselves to be craven racial appeasers who folded like a cheap suit. But the real damage to their reputation was actually on the left - blacks and leftists don't want to attend a school that they read about as being filled with "racists". As Mizzou shows, if you manage these things wrong, you can piss off EVERYONE on both sides. It seems to me that Google is doing the same thing.

    I agree with this. Ballpark Damore will probably walk away with about 2.5 million in settlement and have to pay about 55% of it to his lawyer and in taxes.

    Google normally would try to negotiate a NDA and exit package in such a situation, but they needed him gone ASAP to appease the SJW.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    If I were Damore, the price of my silence would be at least $20 million. Some Fox bimbo got that much because Roger Ailes said "nice boobs" (or whatever it was), so I need to net at least 8 figures since I will be a pariah for the rest of my life.

    I agree with RT(?) that Damore perhaps engineered this whole thing; if so, I hope he thought long and hard about the possible consequences.
  83. Lot says:
    @reiner Tor
    As others have pointed out, it looks like he lawyered up before writing the piece.

    Probably, but there are a lot of good articles about employment law, so an intelligent layman can figure it out.

    Read More
  84. @Lot
    I agree with this. Ballpark Damore will probably walk away with about 2.5 million in settlement and have to pay about 55% of it to his lawyer and in taxes.

    Google normally would try to negotiate a NDA and exit package in such a situation, but they needed him gone ASAP to appease the SJW.

    If I were Damore, the price of my silence would be at least $20 million. Some Fox bimbo got that much because Roger Ailes said “nice boobs” (or whatever it was), so I need to net at least 8 figures since I will be a pariah for the rest of my life.

    I agree with RT(?) that Damore perhaps engineered this whole thing; if so, I hope he thought long and hard about the possible consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    On the other hand, what type of award could Damore expect from a Santa Clara county jury pool? Very good chance of zero.

    I bet his fellow Aspies are pretty good at avoiding jury duty too!
  85. pom says:

    Oh pulleeze. I’ve been in corporations large and mid-sized for many years. In every company I’ve been in, this dude would have been fired immediately. This is not a freedom of speech issue. It’s a corporate self-interest issue. Corporations absolutely must have employees who can work together. This arrogant, insecure idiot is a danger to the company itself. Of course he should have been fired. And Google should have used words like, We will not tolerate, rather than the very weak reply they initially gave. Don’t give this kind of cheap idiocy a platform.

    Read More
  86. CK says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Kaepernick was a little unlucky last year to go 1-10 in his starts. He wasn't as bad as he'd been the season before when he lost his starting job. But still ...

    It used to be that athletes would, say, demand to be called by their Islamic names or something else self-indulgent when they were on top of the world, like Muhammad Ali and Kareem. But Kaepernick had previously made himself unpopular by getting worse ever since his rookie year.

    In 2016, he received $14,300,000 for 1 win.

    http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/colin-kaepernick-7751/cash-earnings/

    A bit unlucky is not exactly how I would define that cash income level.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    The Niners took a $15 million salary cap hit for Kaepernick in 2016, while Tom Brady's cap number was $14 million.

    And people wonder why they win!
  87. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Boethiuss

    This tweet storm by Walter Olson suggests otherwise, but I don’t know.
     
    I think Olson is right here, but what he's talking about is a slightly different problem. That's to say, a woman or feminist at Google can't legitimately sue for a hostile work environment based on Damore's essay (except that he also goes on to say that the big picture tends to lead to exactly that). But even if that were the case, it doesn't immediately help Damore. He's still at-will with Google according to California, and guess what, Google has lost its will to continue his employment.

    You're getting warmer with anti-trust and regulation as a utility. It's important to note that there's no necessary causal relationship between the two. We can do either or both independently.

    For example, there's a case recently where some white nationalists where thrown out as tenants for AirBnB en route to a rally in Charlottesville. You can say that they don't have any particular right to public accommodation in someone's house. But, it's just as easy to say that the AirBnB platform _is_ a public accommodation, and regulate it accordingly.

    I am admittedly at sea when it comes to the nuts and bolts of First Amendment issues, but it has been my understanding over the years that the First Amendment free speech clause was only meant to apply to the government, not to a business or private organization. If you are an employee you serve at the pleasure of your employer. So if you mouth off, out you go–and in some states (NY is one I believe) employment may be terminated without cause. Presumably the latter does not apply in CA thoughI could be wrong. Interestingly, businesses can be sued for racial/sexual etc. discrimination under the terms of the Civil Rights Act which was based in part on the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) if that business is a recipient of federal funds or otherwise reaps the benefits of certain federal laws. I would imagine that Google has contracts with the government so I would wonder if Damore could make a parallel argument based upon the free speech clause of the FIRST Amendment. Otherwise, dunno.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boethiuss
    Again, according to the legal commentary his best plan of attack is federal labor law, not at-will California employment. So even if he doesn't have an invokeable First Amendment right to prevent retribution from his employer, even if for California law he doesn't need a reason to get fired, federal labor law can help. Ie, he does have a right against retribution for speaking with his colleagues regarding improving the working conditions at Google. It seems plausible but iffy for me.

    My point is that to a substantial extent, the whole thing is ancillary. The best case scenario is that Damore wins a lawsuit with significant financial damages. The current Google leadership team, which is either SJW or highly vulnerable to SJW pressure, remains in place and in operational control of a $600 Billion entity (even if the money isn't entirely theirs).

    This is at least a possibility here of our who inflicting some ritual defamation against their whom.

    But like everywhere else, this possibility is not materializing. Which is to say that Our Who, or more specifically Our He, is trapped playing defense by the Special Counsel, and in any event can't execute his way out of a paper bag. Therefore Our Who, has to be bigger than and has to be able to act independently of Our He.
  88. @NickG

    He is not using company time or resources to spout views on unrelated matters,
     
    Apparently he wrote it on a 12 hour flight to China.

    Even if he did use company time does it matter?. He did perhaps use some company time one way or another. Just sitting at his cube pissed off perhaps for hours to sum up the motivation to kill his Google/ Corporate IT career.

    Who cares? Apparently Damore still earned “superb” reviews, only 2-3% of employees do that.

    Read More
  89. @whorefinder
    Affirmative action quotas and EEOC investigations are better than anti-trust to break up conglomorates and market-dominating organizations.

    What conservatives don’t understand is that the energy and creativity of the US economy is driven by diversity.

    Forced diversity and SJW bureaucrats metastasize inside the management of giant companies creating market vulnerabilities and bad customer service. That opens up opportunities for faster and more efficient startups to do the job better, growing the economy.

    If the old giants were allowed to work as efficiently as possible, they’d block startups and crush competition from better competitors with their market power and publicity. The whole country would stagnate.

    It’s much better to inject SJW cancer into every firm beyond a certain size and keep the economy vibrant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TomSchmidt

    Forced diversity and SJW bureaucrats metastasize inside the management of giant companies creating market vulnerabilities and bad customer service. That opens up opportunities for faster and more efficient startups to do the job better, growing the economy.

    If the old giants were allowed to work as efficiently as possible, they’d block startups and crush competition from better competitors with their market power and publicity. The whole country would stagnate.
     
    I appreciate the attempt at irony. But this has already happened:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-decline-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/?utm_term=.7129549bcbcb
    "For the first time on record, business deaths now outpace business. (Chart by Brookings Institute)"
  90. Njguy73 says:
    @Jack D
    It's said that at summer camp when he was 8, Damore called a girl a "poopy face". In addition, he once was reportedly seen to double dip his potato chips.

    It's standard SJW M.O. that when you doxx a wrecker you must assassinate their entire character. He's a no-goodnik and has always been a no-goodnik. He must be cast out!

    It’s said that at summer camp when he was 8, Damore called a girl a “poopy face”. In addition, he once was reportedly seen to double dip his potato chips.

    He wrote another memo: “Bad Stuff ‘Bout Google Execs.”

    “Larry Page borrow James’ soap, never bring it back..Sergey Brin berry berry bad card player…”

    Read More
  91. Njguy73 says:
    @Barnard
    I just read another article touting the neurodiverse angle and hope he doesn't pursue that. The last thing we need is to have Aspies classified as another class of protected victims in employment, plus that was the kind of thing he was arguing against.

    The last thing we need is to have Aspies classified as another class of protected victims in employment, plus that was the kind of thing he was arguing against.

    A major trend in tech over the past few years has been to recruit persons with Asperger’s for their coding abilities. Certain companies have the recruits go through social skills training before starting their internships. I’ve met people who’ve been through that, and they have proved that Asperger’s need not be barrier to gainful employment and integration into a company’s culture.

    The last thing that should happen is for this to be a case of “I can be callous and rude because I have Asperger’s.”

    Read More
  92. Njguy73 says:
    @Barnard
    Because it encourages more people to seek out ways to declare victimhood and oppression instead of teaching them to take responsibility for their choices in life. While this would help Damore in the short term, it contributes to the long term problem instead reversing this trend. It would be one more group people have to tiptoe around to make sure they don't offend for fear of losing your job. I'm sure some will argue that eventually this will cause the whole victimhood racket to collapse, but I don't see that happening soon.

    Because it encourages more people to seek out ways to declare victimhood and oppression instead of teaching them to take responsibility for their choices in life.

    Yes. Autism is an issue close to me, and I encourage those on the spectrum to shun victim-like thinking and to embrace opportunity-centered thinking.

    Read More
  93. @(((Owen)))
    What conservatives don't understand is that the energy and creativity of the US economy is driven by diversity.

    Forced diversity and SJW bureaucrats metastasize inside the management of giant companies creating market vulnerabilities and bad customer service. That opens up opportunities for faster and more efficient startups to do the job better, growing the economy.

    If the old giants were allowed to work as efficiently as possible, they'd block startups and crush competition from better competitors with their market power and publicity. The whole country would stagnate.

    It's much better to inject SJW cancer into every firm beyond a certain size and keep the economy vibrant.

    Forced diversity and SJW bureaucrats metastasize inside the management of giant companies creating market vulnerabilities and bad customer service. That opens up opportunities for faster and more efficient startups to do the job better, growing the economy.

    If the old giants were allowed to work as efficiently as possible, they’d block startups and crush competition from better competitors with their market power and publicity. The whole country would stagnate.

    I appreciate the attempt at irony. But this has already happened:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-small-business/wp/2015/02/12/the-decline-of-american-entrepreneurship-in-five-charts/?utm_term=.7129549bcbcb

    “For the first time on record, business deaths now outpace business. (Chart by Brookings Institute)”

    Read More
  94. Boethiuss says:
    @anonymous
    I am admittedly at sea when it comes to the nuts and bolts of First Amendment issues, but it has been my understanding over the years that the First Amendment free speech clause was only meant to apply to the government, not to a business or private organization. If you are an employee you serve at the pleasure of your employer. So if you mouth off, out you go--and in some states (NY is one I believe) employment may be terminated without cause. Presumably the latter does not apply in CA thoughI could be wrong. Interestingly, businesses can be sued for racial/sexual etc. discrimination under the terms of the Civil Rights Act which was based in part on the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment) if that business is a recipient of federal funds or otherwise reaps the benefits of certain federal laws. I would imagine that Google has contracts with the government so I would wonder if Damore could make a parallel argument based upon the free speech clause of the FIRST Amendment. Otherwise, dunno.

    Again, according to the legal commentary his best plan of attack is federal labor law, not at-will California employment. So even if he doesn’t have an invokeable First Amendment right to prevent retribution from his employer, even if for California law he doesn’t need a reason to get fired, federal labor law can help. Ie, he does have a right against retribution for speaking with his colleagues regarding improving the working conditions at Google. It seems plausible but iffy for me.

    My point is that to a substantial extent, the whole thing is ancillary. The best case scenario is that Damore wins a lawsuit with significant financial damages. The current Google leadership team, which is either SJW or highly vulnerable to SJW pressure, remains in place and in operational control of a $600 Billion entity (even if the money isn’t entirely theirs).

    This is at least a possibility here of our who inflicting some ritual defamation against their whom.

    But like everywhere else, this possibility is not materializing. Which is to say that Our Who, or more specifically Our He, is trapped playing defense by the Special Counsel, and in any event can’t execute his way out of a paper bag. Therefore Our Who, has to be bigger than and has to be able to act independently of Our He.

    Read More
  95. eah says:

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for that. Here is a link to the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-203891

    Web page for his law firm: https://www.paulhastings.com/
    Although his lawyers are all listed as from LA Paul Hastings also has Palo Alto and San Francisco offices
  96. @Lot
    Other than she is a very pale black woman, do we know Mrs. Krugman is radical left? CK's girlfriend is a black Muslim in the media, so safe assumption there.

    There was an article (late 90s I believe? likely in the Times) describing her influence on him. Spoiler: it wasn’t amelioratory.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BenjaminL
    Everything you need is right here on iSteve...

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/mr-and-mrs-krugman/
    , @Lot
    Thanks I remember that now.
  97. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I think we could very well be heading towards the Scopes Trial of Liberal Creationism.

    Read More
  98. @Jack D
    http://www.businessinsider.com/fired-google-employee-says-hes-exploring-all-possible-legal-remedies-2017-8

    If he had settled then he wouldn't be "exploring legal remedies".

    I’m not sure.
    I’ve been watching this closely looking for data that hints this way or that and at first I noted what you are referring to, but the more I see the guy talk the more I think he did what he did in no small part out of being a pure neophyte who very literally doesn’t understand the soup he’s been swimming in.

    Remember Ashley Dupré? She was “considering her legal options” too. Remember how after the Spitzer thing broke some porn group had pictures or videos of her and she had even hired an attorney who went on national TV to talk about how they were going to go after them, and then turned out: so sorry, she signed this little doc you see.

    He comes across as a smart young man, who really may not know what he’s already signed. If he signed nothing and he’s scott-free to sue I’ll buy Mr. Sailer 3 “diverse” Starbucks products next time I’m in Cali, but I’m waiting for the evidence. The most likely “no deal” case would be if Google’s attorneys convinced themselves and the execs that he could be dismissed without a severance and NDA on the basis of him signing the Code of Conduct and the possibility this could be construed as a violation.
    I consider that a long shot though. First – it isn’t bulletproof anyway, Code of Conduct has to conform with NLRB and Google’s lawyers should know that. Second – this is just too easy for Google to make go-away with money and Google is swimming in that. Failing to give him severance rises to almost criminal stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    (I am not a lawyer and my comments reflect my own understanding of US law...)

    "Code of Conduct has to conform with NLRB"
    In one sense, that is the crucial point right there.
    But this is ultimately why Google loses, so long as we still have a functioning system of law.

    Google, so far as I can tell, needs to argue that criticizing the Code of Conduct is itself a violation of the Code of Conduct. Suppose, for the moment, that I am right. If so, then the Code of Conduct is NOT in compliance with NLRB, since, so far as I can tell, employees have the prima facie right to raise discussion of workplace issues.

    Let's think about this in a different context. Suppose there is a company involved in manufacturing, that uses a great deal of machinery with sensors that record fluctuating physical states. Suppose that the "Code of Conduct" for this company requires that employees report "maintenance" issues directly up the "chain of command". Suppose an employee, through direct observation and discussion with employees in other departments, becomes convinced that there are seemingly minor "sensor" errors are being systematically ignored, and pose a grave risk. The employee might try to raise the issue with his own supervisor, only to have the issue dismissed as of little concern to the functioning of his own department. Perhaps the real issue only becomes salient when multiple sensors in multiple departments are considered, but the supervisor does not wish to be seen as infringing upon the turf of others.

    In this case, the employee has the right to attempt to initiate a broader discussion of the sensor problem that cuts across the chain of command. This is quite reasonable, and if the employee does so, it seems he is protected by labor law, even if his actions are explicitly counter to the "Code of Conduct".

    I believe that James Damore has done something quite parallel to this, and I certainly think that this is what his legal team should and will argue.

    Once we allow that Google's Code of Conduct, and James Damore's explicit or implicit acquiescence to it, does not in itself determine a final judgement, things become quite interesting.

    They should present their case as strictly a labor relations case. It has NOTHING to do with "free speech" or the First Amendment. Argue that Damore has the right, and even the duty, to initiate company-wide discussion of problems that impact both the core function of the company and the health and well-being of the workers. And he does. That seems to be the law. And argue that he has the right (and the duty) to introduce to his discussion whatever facts, or apparent facts, seem relevant to his cause.

    So far as I can tell, workers raising workplace issues have the right to introduce plausible conjectures that may turn out to be false. That seems reasonable: if a worker opines to management that the new safety suits are flimsy pieces of s*** that can in no way provide protection from whatever, the worker is not at fault, and is not subject to retaliation, if he fails to grasp that this flimsy suits are constructed of some new material that is demonstrably effective at protecting humans against the prime danger in the work environment. Basically, the worker is allowed to err in raising workplace issues, and this seems a matter of law (as I grasp it).

    James Damore's ten page text is overtly focused on discussion of workplace issues at Google, and he has the prima facie legal right to introduce factual contentions, even if his doing so seems to conflict with Google's "Code of Conduct".

    If his legal team is on the ball, and I suspect they will be, all of this will be taken care of fairly quickly. I don't think Google has any real response here. The only response is to argue that the "factual contentions" are so absurd that they cannot and should not be taken seriously, and that Damore is at fault for failing to realizing this. In short, he is either not acting in good faith or is mentally unfit. But this requires that Google establish that Damore's factual contentions are not only false, but obviously false, obviously false to any reasonable human being.

    Let me consider another scenario here. Suppose that a company has a white racialist employee who objects to a racial nondiscrimination clause in a code of conduct. Suppose he argues that it is harmful, because blacks have no souls, and are not really human beings, and so do not deserve to be protected, and that the clause protecting them brings harm to the company. The company can reasonably, and legally, respond that this is so absurd that it should not be taken seriously as a labor complaint. It is frivolous. And I agree, it is frivolous in a legal sense. I contend that Google is effectively forced to argue that James Damore's contentions are on the same level.

    Of course, this is false. James Damore's contentions are not only not absurd, they seem to me to be true. But Google needs to establish in a court of law that they are not only false, but so absurdly false that no honest, reasonable human would believe them, so that they need not be taken seriously as components of a labor complaint.

    In short, Google needs to establish, in court, that Damore's factual contentions are absurdly false. Since Damore's factual contentions seem quite likely to be true, there is no way they can do that, short of a complete collapse of the legal system.

    My suspicion is that Google's lawyers are going to be sent into battle, themselves, with an order to defend the absurd. And they will try to do it, since they are getting paid, and don't have an easy out, just like the Google employees. Maybe Larry or Sergey will step in and try to stop the nonsense. My suspicion is that James Damore is become more aware of the actual structure of human life than they are.
  99. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @SimplePseudonymicHandle
    I'm not sure.
    I've been watching this closely looking for data that hints this way or that and at first I noted what you are referring to, but the more I see the guy talk the more I think he did what he did in no small part out of being a pure neophyte who very literally doesn't understand the soup he's been swimming in.

    Remember Ashley Dupré? She was "considering her legal options" too. Remember how after the Spitzer thing broke some porn group had pictures or videos of her and she had even hired an attorney who went on national TV to talk about how they were going to go after them, and then turned out: so sorry, she signed this little doc you see.

    He comes across as a smart young man, who really may not know what he's already signed. If he signed nothing and he's scott-free to sue I'll buy Mr. Sailer 3 "diverse" Starbucks products next time I'm in Cali, but I'm waiting for the evidence. The most likely "no deal" case would be if Google's attorneys convinced themselves and the execs that he could be dismissed without a severance and NDA on the basis of him signing the Code of Conduct and the possibility this could be construed as a violation.
    I consider that a long shot though. First - it isn't bulletproof anyway, Code of Conduct has to conform with NLRB and Google's lawyers should know that. Second - this is just too easy for Google to make go-away with money and Google is swimming in that. Failing to give him severance rises to almost criminal stupidity.

    (I am not a lawyer and my comments reflect my own understanding of US law…)

    “Code of Conduct has to conform with NLRB”
    In one sense, that is the crucial point right there.
    But this is ultimately why Google loses, so long as we still have a functioning system of law.

    Google, so far as I can tell, needs to argue that criticizing the Code of Conduct is itself a violation of the Code of Conduct. Suppose, for the moment, that I am right. If so, then the Code of Conduct is NOT in compliance with NLRB, since, so far as I can tell, employees have the prima facie right to raise discussion of workplace issues.

    Let’s think about this in a different context. Suppose there is a company involved in manufacturing, that uses a great deal of machinery with sensors that record fluctuating physical states. Suppose that the “Code of Conduct” for this company requires that employees report “maintenance” issues directly up the “chain of command”. Suppose an employee, through direct observation and discussion with employees in other departments, becomes convinced that there are seemingly minor “sensor” errors are being systematically ignored, and pose a grave risk. The employee might try to raise the issue with his own supervisor, only to have the issue dismissed as of little concern to the functioning of his own department. Perhaps the real issue only becomes salient when multiple sensors in multiple departments are considered, but the supervisor does not wish to be seen as infringing upon the turf of others.

    In this case, the employee has the right to attempt to initiate a broader discussion of the sensor problem that cuts across the chain of command. This is quite reasonable, and if the employee does so, it seems he is protected by labor law, even if his actions are explicitly counter to the “Code of Conduct”.

    I believe that James Damore has done something quite parallel to this, and I certainly think that this is what his legal team should and will argue.

    Once we allow that Google’s Code of Conduct, and James Damore’s explicit or implicit acquiescence to it, does not in itself determine a final judgement, things become quite interesting.

    They should present their case as strictly a labor relations case. It has NOTHING to do with “free speech” or the First Amendment. Argue that Damore has the right, and even the duty, to initiate company-wide discussion of problems that impact both the core function of the company and the health and well-being of the workers. And he does. That seems to be the law. And argue that he has the right (and the duty) to introduce to his discussion whatever facts, or apparent facts, seem relevant to his cause.

    So far as I can tell, workers raising workplace issues have the right to introduce plausible conjectures that may turn out to be false. That seems reasonable: if a worker opines to management that the new safety suits are flimsy pieces of s*** that can in no way provide protection from whatever, the worker is not at fault, and is not subject to retaliation, if he fails to grasp that this flimsy suits are constructed of some new material that is demonstrably effective at protecting humans against the prime danger in the work environment. Basically, the worker is allowed to err in raising workplace issues, and this seems a matter of law (as I grasp it).

    James Damore’s ten page text is overtly focused on discussion of workplace issues at Google, and he has the prima facie legal right to introduce factual contentions, even if his doing so seems to conflict with Google’s “Code of Conduct”.

    If his legal team is on the ball, and I suspect they will be, all of this will be taken care of fairly quickly. I don’t think Google has any real response here. The only response is to argue that the “factual contentions” are so absurd that they cannot and should not be taken seriously, and that Damore is at fault for failing to realizing this. In short, he is either not acting in good faith or is mentally unfit. But this requires that Google establish that Damore’s factual contentions are not only false, but obviously false, obviously false to any reasonable human being.

    Let me consider another scenario here. Suppose that a company has a white racialist employee who objects to a racial nondiscrimination clause in a code of conduct. Suppose he argues that it is harmful, because blacks have no souls, and are not really human beings, and so do not deserve to be protected, and that the clause protecting them brings harm to the company. The company can reasonably, and legally, respond that this is so absurd that it should not be taken seriously as a labor complaint. It is frivolous. And I agree, it is frivolous in a legal sense. I contend that Google is effectively forced to argue that James Damore’s contentions are on the same level.

    Of course, this is false. James Damore’s contentions are not only not absurd, they seem to me to be true. But Google needs to establish in a court of law that they are not only false, but so absurdly false that no honest, reasonable human would believe them, so that they need not be taken seriously as components of a labor complaint.

    In short, Google needs to establish, in court, that Damore’s factual contentions are absurdly false. Since Damore’s factual contentions seem quite likely to be true, there is no way they can do that, short of a complete collapse of the legal system.

    My suspicion is that Google’s lawyers are going to be sent into battle, themselves, with an order to defend the absurd. And they will try to do it, since they are getting paid, and don’t have an easy out, just like the Google employees. Maybe Larry or Sergey will step in and try to stop the nonsense. My suspicion is that James Damore is become more aware of the actual structure of human life than they are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Nothing like a very guilty and very rich client. Google could be the new Phillip Morris for biglaw!
  100. BenjaminL says:
    @Desiderius
    There was an article (late 90s I believe? likely in the Times) describing her influence on him. Spoiler: it wasn't amelioratory.

    Everything you need is right here on iSteve…

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/mr-and-mrs-krugman/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Thx, that was before I read iSteve, but I had seen the New Yorker article, likely from Instapundit.

    The resemblance to the Kaepernick situation is uncanny, complete with the progtard army idolizing both.

    BTW, from that iSteve article:

    With economists, it’s usually Foundation or Atlas Shrugged, not Chekhov.
     
    I read Foundation at an early age and was well on my way to being an asshole economist when my (gay, as I later found out though it was obvious to many at the time) ninth-grade English teacher* gave me a special assignment to read some Chekov. Cured me more or less immediately of any Krugmanesque tendencies and I don't know that I entirely regained my footing until just the past few years.

    That was a good thing.

    * - John Godar, much missed by many, John Lennon clone in more ways than one, lefty with a laugh, died too young of AIDS.
  101. res says:
    @eah
    https://twitter.com/JMcfeels/status/895432734276952065

    Thanks for that. Here is a link to the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-203891

    Web page for his law firm: https://www.paulhastings.com/
    Although his lawyers are all listed as from LA Paul Hastings also has Palo Alto and San Francisco offices

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    Paul Hastings is one of the two firms representing Google. Damore did not have counsel listed.
  102. Lot says:
    @Desiderius
    There was an article (late 90s I believe? likely in the Times) describing her influence on him. Spoiler: it wasn't amelioratory.

    Thanks I remember that now.

    Read More
  103. Lot says:
    @res
    Thanks for that. Here is a link to the case: https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-203891

    Web page for his law firm: https://www.paulhastings.com/
    Although his lawyers are all listed as from LA Paul Hastings also has Palo Alto and San Francisco offices

    Paul Hastings is one of the two firms representing Google. Damore did not have counsel listed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks for the correction. The tweet eah posted said Damore was suing with a top law firm so I carelessly assumed without reading the case info closely. I wonder who is representing Damore. Does anyone know?

    Also, "two firms representing Google"? I see three individual Paul Hastings lawyers listed, but no others. Did I miss something there?

    There is a bit more info at http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-files-nlrb-complaint-against-google-2017-8
    http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-memo-legal/
  104. Lot says:
    @Anonymous
    (I am not a lawyer and my comments reflect my own understanding of US law...)

    "Code of Conduct has to conform with NLRB"
    In one sense, that is the crucial point right there.
    But this is ultimately why Google loses, so long as we still have a functioning system of law.

    Google, so far as I can tell, needs to argue that criticizing the Code of Conduct is itself a violation of the Code of Conduct. Suppose, for the moment, that I am right. If so, then the Code of Conduct is NOT in compliance with NLRB, since, so far as I can tell, employees have the prima facie right to raise discussion of workplace issues.

    Let's think about this in a different context. Suppose there is a company involved in manufacturing, that uses a great deal of machinery with sensors that record fluctuating physical states. Suppose that the "Code of Conduct" for this company requires that employees report "maintenance" issues directly up the "chain of command". Suppose an employee, through direct observation and discussion with employees in other departments, becomes convinced that there are seemingly minor "sensor" errors are being systematically ignored, and pose a grave risk. The employee might try to raise the issue with his own supervisor, only to have the issue dismissed as of little concern to the functioning of his own department. Perhaps the real issue only becomes salient when multiple sensors in multiple departments are considered, but the supervisor does not wish to be seen as infringing upon the turf of others.

    In this case, the employee has the right to attempt to initiate a broader discussion of the sensor problem that cuts across the chain of command. This is quite reasonable, and if the employee does so, it seems he is protected by labor law, even if his actions are explicitly counter to the "Code of Conduct".

    I believe that James Damore has done something quite parallel to this, and I certainly think that this is what his legal team should and will argue.

    Once we allow that Google's Code of Conduct, and James Damore's explicit or implicit acquiescence to it, does not in itself determine a final judgement, things become quite interesting.

    They should present their case as strictly a labor relations case. It has NOTHING to do with "free speech" or the First Amendment. Argue that Damore has the right, and even the duty, to initiate company-wide discussion of problems that impact both the core function of the company and the health and well-being of the workers. And he does. That seems to be the law. And argue that he has the right (and the duty) to introduce to his discussion whatever facts, or apparent facts, seem relevant to his cause.

    So far as I can tell, workers raising workplace issues have the right to introduce plausible conjectures that may turn out to be false. That seems reasonable: if a worker opines to management that the new safety suits are flimsy pieces of s*** that can in no way provide protection from whatever, the worker is not at fault, and is not subject to retaliation, if he fails to grasp that this flimsy suits are constructed of some new material that is demonstrably effective at protecting humans against the prime danger in the work environment. Basically, the worker is allowed to err in raising workplace issues, and this seems a matter of law (as I grasp it).

    James Damore's ten page text is overtly focused on discussion of workplace issues at Google, and he has the prima facie legal right to introduce factual contentions, even if his doing so seems to conflict with Google's "Code of Conduct".

    If his legal team is on the ball, and I suspect they will be, all of this will be taken care of fairly quickly. I don't think Google has any real response here. The only response is to argue that the "factual contentions" are so absurd that they cannot and should not be taken seriously, and that Damore is at fault for failing to realizing this. In short, he is either not acting in good faith or is mentally unfit. But this requires that Google establish that Damore's factual contentions are not only false, but obviously false, obviously false to any reasonable human being.

    Let me consider another scenario here. Suppose that a company has a white racialist employee who objects to a racial nondiscrimination clause in a code of conduct. Suppose he argues that it is harmful, because blacks have no souls, and are not really human beings, and so do not deserve to be protected, and that the clause protecting them brings harm to the company. The company can reasonably, and legally, respond that this is so absurd that it should not be taken seriously as a labor complaint. It is frivolous. And I agree, it is frivolous in a legal sense. I contend that Google is effectively forced to argue that James Damore's contentions are on the same level.

    Of course, this is false. James Damore's contentions are not only not absurd, they seem to me to be true. But Google needs to establish in a court of law that they are not only false, but so absurdly false that no honest, reasonable human would believe them, so that they need not be taken seriously as components of a labor complaint.

    In short, Google needs to establish, in court, that Damore's factual contentions are absurdly false. Since Damore's factual contentions seem quite likely to be true, there is no way they can do that, short of a complete collapse of the legal system.

    My suspicion is that Google's lawyers are going to be sent into battle, themselves, with an order to defend the absurd. And they will try to do it, since they are getting paid, and don't have an easy out, just like the Google employees. Maybe Larry or Sergey will step in and try to stop the nonsense. My suspicion is that James Damore is become more aware of the actual structure of human life than they are.

    Nothing like a very guilty and very rich client. Google could be the new Phillip Morris for biglaw!

    Read More
  105. res says:
    @Lot
    Paul Hastings is one of the two firms representing Google. Damore did not have counsel listed.

    Thanks for the correction. The tweet eah posted said Damore was suing with a top law firm so I carelessly assumed without reading the case info closely. I wonder who is representing Damore. Does anyone know?

    Also, “two firms representing Google”? I see three individual Paul Hastings lawyers listed, but no others. Did I miss something there?

    There is a bit more info at http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-files-nlrb-complaint-against-google-2017-8

    http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-memo-legal/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Lot
    The other one representing Google listed is Latham & Watkins.
  106. Lot says:
    @res
    Thanks for the correction. The tweet eah posted said Damore was suing with a top law firm so I carelessly assumed without reading the case info closely. I wonder who is representing Damore. Does anyone know?

    Also, "two firms representing Google"? I see three individual Paul Hastings lawyers listed, but no others. Did I miss something there?

    There is a bit more info at http://www.businessinsider.com/james-damore-files-nlrb-complaint-against-google-2017-8
    http://fortune.com/2017/08/08/google-memo-legal/

    The other one representing Google listed is Latham & Watkins.

    Read More
  107. Lot says:
    @Jim Don Bob
    If I were Damore, the price of my silence would be at least $20 million. Some Fox bimbo got that much because Roger Ailes said "nice boobs" (or whatever it was), so I need to net at least 8 figures since I will be a pariah for the rest of my life.

    I agree with RT(?) that Damore perhaps engineered this whole thing; if so, I hope he thought long and hard about the possible consequences.

    On the other hand, what type of award could Damore expect from a Santa Clara county jury pool? Very good chance of zero.

    I bet his fellow Aspies are pretty good at avoiding jury duty too!

    Read More
  108. @BenjaminL
    Everything you need is right here on iSteve...

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/mr-and-mrs-krugman/

    Thx, that was before I read iSteve, but I had seen the New Yorker article, likely from Instapundit.

    The resemblance to the Kaepernick situation is uncanny, complete with the progtard army idolizing both.

    BTW, from that iSteve article:

    With economists, it’s usually Foundation or Atlas Shrugged, not Chekhov.

    I read Foundation at an early age and was well on my way to being an asshole economist when my (gay, as I later found out though it was obvious to many at the time) ninth-grade English teacher* gave me a special assignment to read some Chekov. Cured me more or less immediately of any Krugmanesque tendencies and I don’t know that I entirely regained my footing until just the past few years.

    That was a good thing.

    * – John Godar, much missed by many, John Lennon clone in more ways than one, lefty with a laugh, died too young of AIDS.

    Read More
  109. donut says:
    @Bel Riose
    On the standard 1-10 scale, how hot are Carol, Elisa and Michelle, respectively?

    They are friends 2-3 on your scale I imagine and of course Cecil is a man . I sorry for you that you can mock true friendship so casually .

    Read More
  110. donut says:
    @Autochthon
    We've missed you. The soap opera is somewhat novel. Steve often laments his ideas for scripts that will never be produced. Perhaps you two could collaborate on your autobiographical telenovela....

    I envy you that you are so immune from the treachery of loved ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    Oh no; they all betrayed me long ago and I had to start over. I expect my wife will run away with the milkman soon enough. I commisserate. I only jest for leviry.
  111. Brutusale says:
    @anonymous
    What is the difference between him and Colin Kaepernick?

    The cases are not the same. Kaepernick opted out of his contract. You can make your own judgment as to whether the fact that he’s an asshole or that he sucked last year is the reason why he can’t find a new gig.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2017/03/03/kaepernick-opts-out-of-contract-becomes-free-agent/98714304/

    Read More
  112. Brutusale says:
    @CK
    In 2016, he received $14,300,000 for 1 win.
    http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/san-francisco-49ers/colin-kaepernick-7751/cash-earnings/
    A bit unlucky is not exactly how I would define that cash income level.

    The Niners took a $15 million salary cap hit for Kaepernick in 2016, while Tom Brady’s cap number was $14 million.

    And people wonder why they win!

    Read More
  113. @donut
    I envy you that you are so immune from the treachery of loved ones.

    Oh no; they all betrayed me long ago and I had to start over. I expect my wife will run away with the milkman soon enough. I commisserate. I only jest for leviry.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored