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...)