I’m not sure where people get the notion you have the right to say anything at any time without reprisals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/07/business/google-women-engineer-fired-memo.html
“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which
is what my document does,†Mr. Damore said.
I’m not sure where people get the notion you have the right to say anything at any time without reprisals.
https://www.nytimes.com/...neer-fired-memo.html
“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which
is what my document does,†Mr. Damore said.
Sure but he seems to have a rather specific claim not the general “freedom of speech” one people often resort to.
He’s going to sue the shit out of Google…
…and win big.
He’s going to sue the shit out of Google…
…and win big.
If it’s a jury trial he may win but I think he would lose on appeal.
He’s going to sue the shit out of Google…
…and win big.
If it’s a jury trial he may win but I think he would lose on appeal.
Why lose on appeal?
He’s going to sue the shit out of Google…
…and win big.
If it’s a jury trial he may win but I think he would lose on appeal.
Why lose on appeal?
He is an “at will” employee and the company believed his words hurt the company. He wasn’t looking for a legal remedy for what he was saying, it was just an opinion. If he felt what was going on was illegal, he would have tried to correct the situation through the justice system. He didn’t, he wrote an opinion piece. From what I’ve read, he didn’t cite any statutes or legal precedent. Besides, they don’t really need a reason to fire him other than to say he was no longer needed.
JSA and Danno are the labor lawyers, I’m sure they would know.
I’m not sure where people get the notion you have the right to say anything at any time without reprisals.
https://www.nytimes.com/...neer-fired-memo.html
“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which
is what my document does,†Mr. Damore said.
He’s probably right that he has a legal right to raise his concerns. My guess, however, is that he has the right to do so within the confines of whatever grievance process is in place for his employer, not in an OpEd.
He’s already filed a charge with the NLRB. And if his claim is that his memo was concerted, protected activity, which seems to be the case, then his exclusive remedy should be through the NLRB. (No jury.)
If he’s successfully, his remedy will be limited to making him whole, which includes reinstatement (unless waived) and back pay and interest, plus possible job search expenses, etc.
In other words, he might win, but it won’t be big.
I’m not sure where people get the notion you have the right to say anything at any time without reprisals.
https://www.nytimes.com/...neer-fired-memo.html
“I have a legal right to express my concerns about the terms and conditions of my working environment and to bring up potentially illegal behavior, which
is what my document does,†Mr. Damore said.
Sure but he seems to have a rather specific claim not the general “freedom of speech” one people often resort to.
But neither Google nor anyone else is stopping him from expressing his concerns. He’s free to use whatever speech he wants. Just not as an employee of Google. Using mass email as a pulpit for airing corporate grievances is an extremely risky tactic for employment status.
If his memo was protected, concerted activity under the NLRA, then the fact that he didn’t follow any particular grievance process will be irrelevant. An OpEd would likely be as protected as a facebook post, as it would a conversation between two employees.
That said, I haven’t read his memo, so I can’t say whether it could arguably be protected under the NLRA.
He’s going to sue the shit out of Google…
…and win big.
If it’s a jury trial he may win but I think he would lose on appeal.
No jury and no appeals.
It’s a labor issue and Google is going to pay.
He is an “at will” employee and the company believed his words hurt the company. He wasn’t looking for a legal remedy for what he was saying, it was just an opinion. If he felt what was going on was illegal, he would have tried to correct the situation through the justice system. He didn’t, he wrote an opinion piece. From what I’ve read, he didn’t cite any statutes or legal precedent. Besides, they don’t really need a reason to fire him other than to say he was no longer needed.
None of that is really relevant.
It’s a labor issue and Google is going to pay.
That’ll be the end of Google. I don’t know how they could recover from an NRLB fine (if there ends up being one).
He’s going to sue the shit out of Google…
…and win big.
If it’s a jury trial he may win but I think he would lose on appeal.
No jury and no appeals.
It’s a labor issue and Google is going to pay.
No they won’t. It’s an NLRB charge and he has an uphill battle proving his conduct was concerted. It may be protected, but it must also be concerted to have any protection under the NLRA. Google isn’t going to fork out a bunch of money to keep this hush hush. They will play it out.
If (big IF) it ever gets up to the level of the full NLRB, the Board will be stacked with Trump appointees by then. The days of the Obama Board ignoring decades of prior Board precedent are gone. Done. These lone wolf complainants will not find a friendly Board any longer.
Good luck to him.
Does anyone here agree with what he wrote? I definitely agree that Google is left leaning and I’m sure Duffy will chime in about the womens.
He has a right to say what he wants. His employer has a right to dismiss him.
The Constitution is about limiting Federal power. The 1st Amendment says that the Feds aren’t allowed to prevent you from saying your piece. Google isn’t the Federal Government.
Yet.
Its okay to be open and questioning until you are too open and question too much. His memo didn’t seem too over the top nor did it seem hateful. He was careful to be clear that what he said were generalizations and there would be overlap between the sexes in what he was talking about. One of the criticisms is that he is perceived as calling women “snowflakes”. Ironic that the solution is that we don’t allow that talk because it might hurt feelings.
“The above should not be taken as agreement with what he guy wrote just observations on what occurred”
Do you agree with what he wrote?
A little bit of social awareness would tell you this is not a good debate for a male to enter into at work, no matter how they carefully craft their argument. I’m guessing that google hires a few men who are not terribly socially aware.
An interesting question is what evidence would be sufficient to persuade you that there is some inherent difference that explains the gender disparity in tech. Even more interesting is what data would be sufficient to persuade a woman who works in tech of the same thing.
He’s already filed a charge with the NLRB. And if his claim is that his memo was concerted, protected activity, which seems to be the case, then his exclusive remedy should be through the NLRB. (No jury.)
If he’s successfully, his remedy will be limited to making him whole, which includes reinstatement (unless waived) and back pay and interest, plus possible job search expenses, etc.
In other words, he might win, but it won’t be big.
He’ll also soon learn that the software industry is like a small town where everyone knows everyone. He’s going to be blackballed worse than Kapernick.