If that’s the case, they should suffer for it. But I don’t think it necessarily follows that this is why he was fired. In fact, if they only fired him after the media got wind of it, doesn’t that kind of refute the claim that he was fired because of discrimination? It seems he was fired because his actions, once made public, made him a liability to the company. I’m not sure that’s very ethical either, and I don’t know if that was wrongful termination or not. I don’t know employment law well enough to make that call. I don’t know Google’s argument in its own legal defense. This will be an interesting and educational case.
He’s claiming a few different things in his law suit. He says he was fired for expressing his opinions on working conditions, against California law. Saying that he wasn’t fired for expressing those opinions rather he was fired because of hte public outrage generated by those opinions doesn’t strike me as a winning argument.
He’s also claiming damages as a member of a discriminated class. Namely, being white and being a conservative/Trump supporter. Someone can correct me, but I don’t think he has to show specific damages that he incurred to win. He needs to show that the class is being illegally discriminated against.
It’s pretty clear that both of those groups are discriminated against at Google, at least in certain situations. It will be interesting because neither, AFAIK, white male or conservative, have been successfully used in a company wide suit.
It would be firing someone for their political views, which is illegal in California, or firing someone for advocating to improve their workplace, which is illegal federally. Plus he alleges a general culture of hostility to white males, which is illegal both under state and federal law.
I’m pretty sure whites have been able to successfully sue in the past for discrimination. Here’s one rather famous case:
The summary is that Lockheed Martin had a zero tolerance policy for racial slurs in company communications. White employees who spread racist emails were fired. Black employees who spread racist emails were given lesser punishments. White employees sued, white employees won.
That case is similar to the Damore case in that Damore got fired for a memo that didn’t even advocate discrimination, while Kim Burchett continues to be in a management position despite expressly advocating discrimination.
I found some more commentary about whites successfully suing here:
Basically, a misperception people often have is that there are “protected” groups under the law. That actually isn’t true. The law must treat all groups equally. If a white person is subject to a hostile workplace or singled out for punishment, then he has a strong case.
I think she’s missing something even bigger here. In a company that appears to be full of Bernie Bros, how many comments are there going to be bashing “neoliberals”, “corporate Democrats”, Hillary Clinton, the DNC, etc.? Google could very well come ouf of this with both major political parties in a very bad mood.
Relevant article from the other side of the fence -
former Google guy claims he left because his pro-diversity message board postings were shut down.
I don’t necessarily hold any brief for his claim that he was overburdened with fascist coworkers who made his workplace hostile - in fact, Google’s actions as described in the article sound pretty reasonable.
It does start to sound though, like they have more than their fair share of obsessive prima donnas (of whatever political orientation) who simply can’t just let shit go when necessary.
Those are examples of individuals or small groups suing for direct harassment. I’m talking about a successful lawsuit with white people as a class suing a major company.
Good for you. You picked out a piece you don’t agree with and let us know. Now, how about the rest? Or is it that research that doesn’t conform with your views is automatically ‘stupid and worthless’?
I also disagree with the firing and also suspect he knew he would be canned for posting it.
The way I read it he was trying to start a frank discussion about Google’s sacred cows; the issues so sensitive it is taboo to oppose them in any way. And Google essentially confirmed his viewpoint by immediately firing him.