James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google

[Rion]

James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying…

James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying it discriminates against white male conservatives

I can't quote from the stuff that's come out so far in regards to the lawsuit filing, 'cause of TOS. But it is... eye opening.

Get your popcorn ready!

 

[brinny]

James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying…

James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying it discriminates against white male conservatives

I can't quote from the stuff that's come out so far in regards to the lawsuit filing, 'cause of TOS. But it is... eye opening.

Get your popcorn ready!
View attachment 217862

 

[alsughasoughaiuyfygh]

.

 

[Ana the Ist]

James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying…

James Damore just filed a class action lawsuit against Google, saying it discriminates against white male conservatives

I can't quote from the stuff that's come out so far in regards to the lawsuit filing, 'cause of TOS. But it is... eye opening.

Get your popcorn ready!
View attachment 217862

That's gonna be rather difficult to prove.

 

[Rion]

That's gonna be rather difficult to prove.

Ha, not if you've seen some of the evidence.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ha, not if you've seen some of the evidence.

Like?

 

[Chesterton]

Ha, not if you've seen some of the evidence.

Off Topic if you don't mind: I've always wondered what emoji means. What's "asd"?

 

[DaisyDay]

Is it actually illegal to discriminate against someone based on their political views?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ha, not if you've seen some of the evidence.

Was the evidence in the first link?

 

[Maren]

Ha, not if you've seen some of the evidence.

I'm curious, what evidence? Particularly remembering this issue:

Is it actually illegal to discriminate against someone based on their political views?

There is no protection in the workplace for political belief. Google will claim he is an employee and his forum posting, as a known employee, did not meet company PR standards. Besides, I keep hearing how private companies have the right to hire and fire employees for any (non Civil Rights) reason -- odd that Conservatives are now trying to claim Google doesn't have that right when it works against Conservatives.

While I can understand a claim based on race, I doubt he'll be able to win that one either. So far as I know, there is nothing illegal about Google encouraging bosses to hire minorities. He claims that they had some type of quote system, but he also states not all bosses hired enough minorities -- that would indicate there was no actual quota system in place. This is doubly true since the federal government, through the EEOC, requires companies to report the number of minorities that work for them.

I'm not going to say he can't win, particularly depending on the jury, but I do believe he has a high burden of proof to clear.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm curious, what evidence? Particularly remembering this issue:



There is no protection in the workplace for political belief.

You sure about that?

Google will claim he is an employee and his forum posting, as a known employee, did not meet company PR standards. Besides, I keep hearing how private companies have the right to hire and fire employees for any (non Civil Rights) reason -- odd that Conservatives are now trying to claim Google doesn't have that right when it works against Conservatives.

While I can understand a claim based on race, I doubt he'll be able to win that one either. So far as I know, there is nothing illegal about Google encouraging bosses to hire minorities.

Arguably, it's discrimination. Skin color or ethnicity shouldn't be a factor. Telling someone to hire more blacks is the same as telling them not to hire whites.

He claims that they had some type of quote system, but he also states not all bosses hired enough minorities -- that would indicate there was no actual quota system in place. This is doubly true since the federal government, through the EEOC, requires companies to report the number of minorities that work for them.

I'm not going to say he can't win, particularly depending on the jury, but I do believe he has a high burden of proof to clear.

If there were actual quotas...he might have a case. Failing to meet those quotas won't be a factor. I don't see how he's going to prove those exist though...it won't be easy to get Google employees to testify against the company.

 

[Maren]

You sure about that?

Sorry, I responded too quickly. It technically is correct, there is no protection based on political belief (at least that I recall) though there are First Amendment protections. Additionally, there is little in the way of protections for things you might say online -- as people posting on Facebook and other social media have found. In this case, so long as people online knew he worked for Google he could be seen as representing the company online, and could be fired for going against, and particularly complaining against, company policy.

Arguably, it's discrimination. Skin color or ethnicity shouldn't be a factor. Telling someone to hire more blacks is the same as telling them not to hire whites.

You can argue it shouldn't be, but it is. As evidenced by the fact that the EEOC tracks those things and, if the company does not have enough minority representation in various job positions, can be sued. As such, companies have a vested interest in ensuring that enough minorities are hired to keep them from having issues with the EEOC and lawsuits.

If there were actual quotas...he might have a case. Failing to meet those quotas won't be a factor. I don't see how he's going to prove those exist though...it won't be easy to get Google employees to testify against the company.

And that is my point, I think he'll have a hard time providing the evidence. I doubt Google had actual quotas, and bosses not meeting those "quotas" also would tend to support the idea there is no actual quota, though there may be suggested hiring practices (based somewhat on EEOC guidelines).

 

[Rion]

Was the evidence in the first link?

No, it is in the actual filing. I will try to get some of it tomorrow / today that doesn't violate TOS.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Sorry, I responded too quickly. It technically is correct, there is no protection based on political belief (at least that I recall) though there are First Amendment protections. Additionally, there is little in the way of protections for things you might say online -- as people posting on Facebook and other social media have found. In this case, so long as people online knew he worked for Google he could be seen as representing the company online, and could be fired for going against, and particularly complaining against, company policy.

A quick Google search told me it varies from state to state...but like most things, it's not going to protect what you say on the company dime. It just means you can't be fired because someone found out you're a libertarian or something.

You can argue it shouldn't be, but it is. As evidenced by the fact that the EEOC tracks those things and, if the company does not have enough minority representation in various job positions, can be sued. As such, companies have a vested interest in ensuring that enough minorities are hired to keep them from having issues with the EEOC and lawsuits.

Well...they'd be sued for discrimination, right? They'd still have to show discrimination occurred wouldn't they? Arguably it wouldn't matter how big the company is...if only whites apply for the jobs then what's the company to do?

And that is my point, I think he'll have a hard time providing the evidence. I doubt Google had actual quotas, and bosses not meeting those "quotas" also would tend to support the idea there is no actual quota, though there may be suggested hiring practices (based somewhat on EEOC guidelines).

Only time will tell I guess...

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it is in the actual filing. I will try to get some of it tomorrow / today that doesn't violate TOS.

Gotcha, I read through the second link looking for it...wasn't sure.

 

[USincognito]

Smells like a political stunt. I'm sure it will be wonderfully successful.

 

[Rion]

Gotcha, I read through the second link looking for it...wasn't sure.

Nah, I have a link to the whole thing on scribd, I just can't link it due to TOS.

Is it actually illegal to discriminate against someone based on their political views?

Smells like a political stunt. I'm sure it will be wonderfully successful.

That's not what the lawsuit is about. Here's an article from before he actually filed it, explaining why he has a good chance of success:

James Damore has an 'above decent' chance of winning his legal case against Google

There is no protection in the workplace for political belief. Google will claim he is an employee and his forum posting, as a known employee, did not meet company PR standards. Besides, I keep hearing how private companies have the right to hire and fire employees for any (non Civil Rights) reason -- odd that Conservatives are now trying to claim Google doesn't have that right when it works against Conservatives.

To begin with, Damore is not a conservative; he's just one of those awful people who follow his professed beliefs to the obvious conclusion. In this case, if you believe in equality, that means for everyone. Besides which, what you're asking for is a selective application of principles only when it harms the principle-holder.

 

[NightHawkeye]

James Damore has an 'above decent' chance of winning his legal case against Google

To begin with, Damore is not a conservative; he's just one of those awful people who follow his professed beliefs to the obvious conclusion. In this case, if you believe in equality, that means for everyone. Besides which, what you're asking for is a selective application of principles only when it harms the principle-holder.

I don't think he'll lose this case.
The Google engineer fired over his controversial 'diversity memo' is suing the company, alleging discrimination

"Google employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google's employment policies and its business, such as 'diversity' hiring policies, 'bias sensitivity,' or 'social justice' were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights," the lawsuit states.

The suit also alleges that Google has "open hostility for conservative thought," that Damore and others were "ostracized, belittled and punished" for their views, that the company is an "ideological echo chamber" that uses "illegal hiring quotas" at the expense of white males.​

 

[Rion]

 

[Rubiks]

I'm curious, what evidence? Particularly remembering this issue:



There is no protection in the workplace for political belief. Google will claim he is an employee and his forum posting, as a known employee, did not meet company PR standards. Besides, I keep hearing how private companies have the right to hire and fire employees for any (non Civil Rights) reason -- odd that Conservatives are now trying to claim Google doesn't have that right when it works against Conservatives.

While I can understand a claim based on race, I doubt he'll be able to win that one either. So far as I know, there is nothing illegal about Google encouraging bosses to hire minorities. He claims that they had some type of quote system, but he also states not all bosses hired enough minorities -- that would indicate there was no actual quota system in place. This is doubly true since the federal government, through the EEOC, requires companies to report the number of minorities that work for them.

I'm not going to say he can't win, particularly depending on the jury, but I do believe he has a high burden of proof to clear.

So you can't discriminate based off religion, but you can based off political party?