Google X Executive Accused of Sexual Harassment Still Works There, Employees Say
slate.com
slate.com
This person was weirdly resigned to their fate. They are a contractor, so maybe they’re scared of being let go, but the vibe I got from him was just “that’s how it is these days and I have to accept it”.
I guess what creeped me out was how he never heard what the accusation was. It was very kafkaesque, a court you don’t recognize for a crime you aren’t told.
Again I want to emphasize he was in one of those positions Google does where they test you out as a contractor for 18 months before deciding to flip you or not, so it could have been related to that different kind of employment status.
It's also normal now for historically "powerful" groups to have a different set of rules about what is ok to say. For example, referencing Christ isn't treated the same way as saying something comparable about Buddha or Vishnu, and will likely be treated with more scrutiny.
The best bet for a new employee is to just avoid any hot button issues entirely.
More trouble and potential negative repercussions than to fight about it than just fess up and make it go away?
I don't know the specifics of this case, could well not be, just wondering if it's possible.
I say all this because I can totally see how someone normalizes to stuff the rest of the world would say isn't ok. I don't think DeVaul is a creep. I think he's lived in the SF cultural bubble too long. Whether he should lose his job for that, I don't know, but I'm one of those people who think intention is 80% of what matters in cases like this.
This is also why I think it's important that tech leadership expands beyond the bay. It's subtle (or maybe to some not so subtle) ways like this that highlight how people here think differently about what should be normal.
The problem was:
a)Mentioning his relationship status ("poly") to a candidate during the interview
b)Asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate was still waiting for response
It's good to see him go.[1]
[1]https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alp...
Why? because he is suggesting that said person can be hired because of a quality unrelated to what the company needs. It is at this point that "he is an exec and therefore creates value at the company far out weighing this 'temporary impairment of judgement'" becomes null and void.
His judgement is causing shareholder harm. Therefore the company should find someone who is able to provide the company with better value and judgement.
Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?
There has never been and never will be such a presumption in private enterprise. We can fix it if you want, but you won't like the amount of Government control over industry that would require.
Also, I realize "unverified accusation" is a commonly used distracting turn of phrase, but that hardly seems appropriate here:
> ...an official at X told her, per the Times, that “her account was ‘more likely than not’ true and that ‘appropriate action’ was taken.” Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.”
Sounds like verified, and admitted by the guilty party.
No, stop, that's hardly a cost worth paying attention to for a large company. An exec is worth much more than almost anyone of lower rank.
That's the problem, though. There is no way you can appeal to a large company in terms of the cost of lost employees who are victims of assault by higher-ups. The media storm is what gets them, it's the bad publicity they fear-- in my opinion that is the only way to get anything "done" in terms of assault cases like this.
At the same time, when we rely on bad publicity to force action, we risk ruining the lives of innocent people. Men and women in powerful positions are often targeted with these sorts of accusations for the sole purpose of getting them out of the way.
I have no proposed solution but appealing in the way you have is not it. It just does not make sense.
That's why execs even bother to put out damage control emails like the one Astro Teller sent. Or the ones following mass layouts. They are trying to stop the morale bleeding to avoid a crisis. Maybe it will work this time, maybe it won't and they'll have to fire DeVaul.
Also, I'm sure a lot of employees weren't, and maybe still aren't, even aware that an accused man still works at their company. Most employees at any company don't have reason to be in contact with or have any information whatsoever about the executives of that company and, apart from that, businesses will work hard to keep that info under the radar.
Mass layoffs definitely get around in the workplace because it's directly related to everyone's job security. Some exec accused of sexual assault doesn't really affect job security, so most people don't really care to know, if they ever catch wind of it anyways. There isn't a huge cost here when the majority of your workforce doesn't know and doesn't care.
Of course, even in our legal system, all it takes is an accusation. How many people are currently serving times for crimes they didn't commit? I'd bet the answer is disturbing high, especially when the level of certainty is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do so many convicted of murder or other crimes later get proven innocent? If someone didn't commit a crime... you'd think there was quite a reasonable doubt.
I often marvel that some people seem willing to completely ignore evidence that doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction.
Any information, whether an admission of guilt, an accusation, multiple accusations, direct observation, observation of borderline or boundary-pushing behavior, or anythings else, provides some amount of evidence. Start with some prior probability of someone engaging in bad behavior (of any type, this isn't specific to harassment), in the absence of any information. Update that probability based on what evidence you have. You now have some estimated probability of someone engaging in that bad behavior.
There's a threshold ("beyond a reasonable doubt", say 99%) where you'd use it to convict someone of a crime, depriving them of personal liberty to protect others and theoretically to attempt to reform them. There's a lower threshold (50%, "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities") where you'd use in a civil case, such as a lawsuit. There's a still lower threshold used for "probable cause", enough to get a warrant to investigate. There's a still lower threshold for "reasonable suspicion".
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st... for a wide variety of legal standards other than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the US legal system already applies, and some of the circumstances in which they apply.
So, continuing the same premise: there's a threshold (most definitely not 99%) where you'd decide not to put someone in a position of power that they seem likely to abuse. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to use a quote from someone to endorse a press release. There's a threshold where you'd refuse to employ someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone attend a conference where they might harm others or make others unwelcome. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone babysit your kids. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to date someone, or be friends with someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide to make sure you're never alone with someone.
I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?
> I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?
I absolutely agree. The question is, what standard would you use? Likewise, what standard would you want used by your employer if you were accused of something?
You're probably commenting the title (which says he was just accused) and not the article.
DeVaul admitted the events took place and apologized.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
> In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.
Only for penal offenses (same source [0].) Torts are not penal offenses, and workplace discipline that doesn't involve government action is even farther from a penal offense.
> Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?
An accusation, even unverified, is not required for termination.
“At-will employment” means pretty much what the name says. Outside of special cases (tenured and/or civil service status, special employment cobtracts) a job is a discretionary immediately revocable relationship, not a property interest secured by right.
[0] https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea...
If your choice of definition were correct, that would mean that any firing which is part of a punishment would have to go through the court system first. Since that isn't the case, that means your choice of definition is not correct.
The penal code is "a code of laws concerning crimes and offenses and their punishment" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penal%20code . A penal offense is something which is counter to the penal code.
You seem to have looked up “penal” alone in a general-use dictionary, rather than the legal term “penal offense” in a law dictionary. Unsurprisingly, the treaty, a document of international law, uses a legal term of art in (one of) it's legal sense(s). The term generally means “an offense punishable by law”, but is more specifically construed in a couple different senses, narrowly as synonymous with criminal offenses, but sometimes more broadly incorporating also offenses which are not criminal but include an exemplary / punitive sanction as well as (and particularly not tied to) any compensatory one.
Termination of employment is not a sanction (punitive or otherwise) by law. (Well, in the case under discussion; it can be a legal sanction, e.g., under military law.)
its got nothing to do with your employment. unless you're assuming a right to a job in your argument.
France has a permanent unemployed class, with perpetually high unemployment as a result of their labor laws and generous welfare state. Those people are not starving to death.
Clearly UBI is in fact not necessary at all, so say the best countries in the world, from Denmark to Canada.
That's so wrong it's not even relevant. It's like if you looked up "dog" in the dictionary and the definition was "a leafy plant."
Are you sure you didn't mean a "literal"?
That's not really a system that I'd like to follow.
what you are advocating for here is a nanny state where every time there is an indiscretion a person is innocent until the full power of an international court comes in to deem a person guilty. you don't like the way society is going with this, yet your argument is that we need a trial to convict something in the public opinion.
instead of advocating for one extreme to fight another extreme why not just use your own reasoning to determine which person you believe. google found the accusation credible, yet did nothing for the _victim_ other than tell them to keep quiet. is that also justice to you?
and you think google actually wants some kind of trial on this? if they did they would be referring these matters to the local authorities. but instead it's just covered up, it's been "handled"
don't worry though since it seems like no one actually gets punished for this kinda stuff other than a public shaming.
Spitting in general in the US is not illegal. Should you spit inside of a store? No and you’ll probably be asked to leave. When the owner says that dude is an asshole who spat in my store do you respond, “hold up where is his jury of peers?”
Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer. The bigger issue is do you want to work under someone who does that? Either that person has no understanding of societal cues or they do and are asserting their power to take advantage of someone.
I assume you've had to take sexual harassment training before? It's usually explained there. In the United States, the EEOC files lawsuits on behalf of the victims.
Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer
Yup, there is, and it comes from the EEOC suing you.
In most modern media, certainly not. And on Slate, it's usually the opposite (guilty until proven innocent), especially if the subject happens to be in one of the supposedly dominant classes (white|male|rich|anglo-saxon|straight, etc...)
Either that or Damore just had less social standing than this person and therefore was treated differently.
The fact that your comment was downvoted without comment seems quite telling.
But yes, it would be nice if companies actually published their HR procedures, and expectations, so that they could be held accountable for how they carry out (Or fail to carry out) disciplinary action.
So that you can actually know that there is a double standard for the rank and file, versus the thought leaders, instead of having to infer it from reading tea leaves.
Again, he could be talking rubbish, but I would expect that to be treated a lot less harshly than coercing someone into giving you a blowjob.
> but I would expect that to be treated a lot less harshly than coercing someone into giving you a blowjob.
Oh, I'm by no means defending Andy, here. That he got a pat on the back, and an exit bonus is unconscionable. There's clearly a problem here.
Can you point me to where it said that? I don't remember reading anything like that in his paper.
You read his memo, right?
Can you point it out?
3/4ths of the tech industry would lose their jobs if such a rule was applied consistently
Suggesting that one can get a job with one's employer if you just do x, is either fraud or gross misconduct.
If he had not mentioned the job then he'd just be an arsehole who discusses their sexual proclivities in an professional setting.
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassm... > Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.”
https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-... > In 2013, Richard DeVaul, one of the directors for Google’s moonshot division X, invited job interviewee Star Simpson to arts festival Burning Man. There, DeVaul offered the engineer a back rub, asking her to remove her shirt. She felt coerced to at least receive a neck rub. She was passed over for the job without explanation. After hesitating for two years, Simpson reported the matter to human resources after seeing DeVaul rise to prominence in profiles from The New York Times and The Atlantic. DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an “error of judgment.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-... > In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.
edit: 'seeing' at a swingers club is implying that some sexual move/request was made. That's the point of these clubs.
> "It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club."
No, she did not complain about seeing him there. You are getting mixed up. He actually made an advance on her there. That is also not okay for a boss to do in a swingers club either.
as to your first point, it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way.
If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment! you don’t need to be someone’s boss in order to have the ability to do harm to someone.
Not hiring someone over a sexual denial, stalking, rape, spreading false rumors about people - these are all illegal for a reason - so that we can deny people without constant fear of harm.
What this google exec did was not harassment.
That is not a correct interpretation of US law. Sexual harassment in the workplace includes any unwelcome sexual conduct. Quoting from https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html :
> Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but-tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD ¶ 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977) (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. The Eleventh Circuit provided a general definition of "unwelcome conduct" in Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d at 903: the challenged conduct must be unwelcome "in the sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive."
The specific legal definition is at https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11 . Note that "repeated" in not in that definition.
For example, going back to the EEOC guidelines: "in "quid pro quo" cases a single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to the granting or denial of employment benefits." That seems to be the exact issue at hand, yes?
Furthermore, even in the context of 'hostile workplace', which is distinct from 'quid pro quo', Barrett v. Omaha National Bank established that even "a single, unusually severe incident of harassment" may be enough to "constitute[] actionable sexual harassment".
"Not hiring someone over a sexual denial" is quid pro quo harassment, hence illegal. Was there some other law you were thinking of which made it illegal?
"If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment!"
Which why the law doesn't say that. The same EEOC guidelines say:
> In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the hypersensitive."
It then gives an example:
> Example - Charging Party alleges that her coworker made repeated unwelcome sexual advances toward her. An investigation discloses that the alleged "advances" consisted of invitations to join a group of employees who regularly socialized at dinner after work. The coworker's invitations, viewed in that context and from the perspective of a reasonable person, would not have created a hostile environment and therefore did not constitute sexual harassment.
and, regarding hostile workplaces:
> As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate Title VII."
It seems rather reasonable, but leaves a lot up the the interpretation of the judge/jury if it goes to court.
There's also something to be said for public social opinion/corporate standards which are distinct from law. Google has its own set of rules based off of public opinion that are only allowed to be more strict than the law. I think this deserves more discussion than the current law as far as this point about hypothetical harm is concerned - law follows public opinion and right now the law is kept very general.
I'm glad we agree that “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is irrelevant to the law, and I argue it should be for public opinion as well. It's unfortunate how common this refrain is, but I think it is the minority opinion.
"I think this deserves more discussion than the current law"
You were the one who connected this issue to the law when you wrote that '[n]ot hiring someone over a sexual denial' was illegal but not sexual harassment. I wanted to show how that characterization was incorrect.
"I'm glad we agree that “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is irrelevant to the law,"
I have no idea what you are talking about. Quid quo pro harassment specifically concerns the topic 'something bad might happen to me if I say no' - it's very relevant.
Not hiring someone over a sexual denial is sexual harassment. Not sure where the miscommunication happened there. Its literally the ground I stood on when saying 'something bad might happen to me if I say no' is a bogus way to culturally define SH' - because that's true of all human interaction. Law is what helps make us forget about the fact that my neighbor could stab me if I deny them something they want - yet we don't make it illegal for our neighbors to ask us for things - which is what some are proposing.
We are talking about 2 things here:
1. should it be legal to make a sexual advance even though you could theoretically harm them if they say no.
2. should it be legal to not hire someone because you sexually denied them.
I'm using the fact that #2 is already illegal to strengthen my point that #1 should remain legal and culturally acceptable, and that doing otherwise is ridiculous.
Since (I assume) you are involved in a workplace, I think it's important to let you know, in order to help reduce the misinformation about what sexual harassment law actually covers.
Your "theoretical" in #1 has two common interpretations. 1) minor or abstract, as might be perceived by the 'hypersensitive'. This is already rejected by case law and widely agreed that it is irrelevant.
But theoretical can also mean 2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct. As examples #2, antimatter was theoretical in Dirac's 1928 paper, and discovered by Anderson in 1932; Neptune's existence was theoretical when Bouvard used perturbations in Uranus's orbit to deduce that Neptune existed, before Galle observed it in a telescope.
It is not hard to come up with examples where the a supervisor may make an unwanted sexual advance where employee does not know if there will be negative job consequences to saying no, but does not say 'no' for fear of the - at that point - theoretical negative consequences for saying no. Eg, Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson.
> Taylor treated her in a fatherly way and made no sexual advances. Shortly thereafter, however, he invited her out to dinner and, during the course of the meal, suggested that they go to a motel to have sexual relations. At first she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job she eventually agreed. According to respondent, Taylor thereafter made repeated demands upon her for sexual favors, usually at the branch, both during and after business hours; she estimated that over the next several years she had intercourse with him some 40 or 50 times.
The District Court originally declared "if respondent and the supervisor did have a sexual relationship, it was voluntary and had nothing to do with her continued employment at the bank, and that therefore respondent was not the victim of sexual harassment." The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and the Supreme Court agreed. This is the court case which determined that sexual harassment can be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Nor must there be actual negative consequences. It is the unwelcomeness which makes it harassment, and from the Meritor decision, 'harassment that, while not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working environment'.
The legal question isn't "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sexual harassment?" but "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sufficient level of sexual harassment so as to constitute workplace discrimination?".
I don't understand the distinction you're making between "1) minor or abstract" and "2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be correct." Could you elaborate on #1.
Again I also want to make the point that at least for this discussion I'm putting myself in the position of someone who is creating the law - not following it. But yes we should know what the current law is and what the case law is - yes. It can help us guide us there. So thanks for your insight there.
The article itself says that 48 people (13 of them seniors members) were fired for similar claims. It's not as if Google was turning a blind eye.
> In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.”
Quote comes from https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-...
> DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an “error of judgment.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...
> In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.
Google's statement in their employee email was about firing 48 people for sexual misconduct since 2016. Which is to say, they may not be turning a blind eye now, but definitely were then. And of course, as the article points out, even if they've improved their handling of these incidents, DeVaul is still working there.
I might still now. However, since he has been allowed to continue to work there, has his behavior reformed or not? If it has, then it's not clear what benefit there would be in his firing now.
This certainly does not seem something that warrants firing, and might even be correct behavior depending on circumstances (e.g. if he had reason to believe she would not feel coerced or otherwise be happy consenting).