Hacker News Reader

Comment by l33tbro | Hacker News Reader

Okay, slipping into my bomb-squad EOD suit to comment on this topic. But, seriously, the more I read about Damore, the more it seems like this was a cunning plan to get fired and then sue the roller-hockey pants off Sergey Brin and Co.

While much has been made of a Harvard education being no substitute for social intelligence, Damore is no slouch and really does just seem like a disgruntled employee who devised an almost surgical peace-out that would ensure he was compensated for life. This will be one interesting lawsuit.

View on HN

While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for?

There's no right to free speech in the work place. If he was fired for something he wrote on his private blog, or discussed with coworkers at an off-site bar, that might be different.

If he does sue, Google will have little problem showing that the employee, through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.

>While his plan may be to sue, what grounds do you think he can sue for?

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14967987

California has very strong employee protection. Yes, even though it is "at will" there are still some very strong protections.

For example, in California it is illegal to fire someone for "political activity", which this memo, debateably, may have been.

It is also illegal in California to fire someone for bringing up workplace concerns (this falls under union/worker organizing laws).

Finally, and most ironically, it is illegal to fire someone for bringing up discrimination concerns, EVEN IF those concerns turn out to be false/not illegal/not discrimination.

This guy, debateably, was bringing up discrimination concerns.

Is it debateable? It's a political document that starts by characterising differences between the political left and right. It states that Google's policies are explicitly discrimination, and not only illegal but motivated by "left ideology".

How it could be more political or about discrimination concerns?

Read footnote 6. That to me, is a pretty smoking gun of a comment.

"6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs"

....discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done)....

Wonder if he has proof?

He'll likely argue that he was whistleblowing on discriminatory hiring practices and was fired in retaliation. He may even have proof that Google won't want aired out in court and they'll settle.

Google will most likely offer a huge settlement just to avoid the negative publicity and embarrassing disclosures that come out during the discovery process (which in many cases may show further tortious conduct towards third parties). The case doesn't need to be strong, rather just painful enough for Google to defend.

> through his memo, has created a hostile workplace for women at Google.

Can you point out the part of his memo that created a hostile environment for women?

This sort of baseless speculation is not fruitful IMO. But I'll participate with my own hunch.

I don't think this is the case. The letter comes off as very genuine. It very much feels like what a immature "tech bro" would write. So much so when I first read it, I only skimmed it because it was so drab. You could have been at a bar surrounded by a bunch of drunk tech employees and heard very much the same thing. I only read it in entirety after the buzz got to loud to ignore.

Also I don't think there's a good chance he'll win a discrimination case against Google.

It looks like a cunning plan because it doesn't look like it's going to turn out he's going to be forever unemployed after expressing concern about a monoculture, getting extensively character-assassinated by the circus media and coworkers, and expressly fired?

How many steps ahead did he see exactly?

I'm never sure I buy the 3D chess argument.

Doesn't work because there is no "compensated for life" outcome here. He can get a few months of lost pay, likely minus his attorney's fees. That may still be meaningful, but I doubt it's 'retirement money'.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/damages-wrongful-term...

The timing of going to NLRB made it look like emergency maneuvers to me. If I were him, I would also have copied e-mails and forum posts like crazy, but I am wondering what the level of security at Google is.

He's a master chess player. My mentor Program Manager once told me, to work as if I am playing chess--understand the objective and plan a few moves ahead. It helped me tremendously. I am sure he has plans for "Google starts internal discussion" and "Google fires him" scenario.

I once had a colleague who had the following theory: "Some actions let you doubt whether a person is either a brilliant genius, or a complete idiot. Most of the time, it's the second."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com