Hacker News Reader

Comment by JamesBarney | Hacker News Reader

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm

> In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit.

This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions.

> Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.

It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.

View on HN

Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date. Google fired her immediately.

> In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...

> > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit.

> This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions.

She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, because she didn't specify an end date to her employment. Therefore the sentence you've cited doesn't apply. That's more to cover "I said I was quitting on the 17th if you as the company don't hire this person", and trying to claim that the otherwise voluntary quit was a termination because the company "had a choice".

> It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.

Maybe, maybe not. I've seen wrongful termination cases play out in favor of the employee only because they made copies of the relevant emails. A company that's already committing illegal acts terminating someone doesn't always comply with the discovery process the way they should.

The question is "Did Google verifiably lie?"

I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word.

Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way?

1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, and demonstrated she wanted to leave the job 2. California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) 3. Gebru did not withdraw her resignation 4. Gebru no longer wished to work at Google 5. Gebru(as a manager) advised co-workers to stop work 6. Google "accepted" her resignation.

I don't think Gebru is a liar either. I think that her resigning and being fired are both reasonable one word descriptions of the events. Fired implies she wanted to continue working at Google, and resigned implies Google wanted to keep her employed. But neither of those were true.

They just mutually decided they weren't a good fit. Gebru because she thinks Google is evil, and Google because they thought Gebru was being unprofessional.

> I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word.

You can't first claim that you're not using California law in your argument, then immediately cliam that your arguement is based in California law.

Particularly when I explained how your undertanding of California law is mistaken, and doubly so when the crux of your misunderstanding is what a resignation consists of.

> ... California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) ...

_If_ it was a resignation in the first place, which requires the employee to set the end date. That is not this situation.

The point is for someone to be lying their use of the word has to be inconsistent with how any reasonable person could use the word. My argument is that if you use the word in the way California law uses it your not lying. But also if you don't use it in the way California law uses it but the way U.S. law uses your not lying. Or if you use it in a manner that's inconsistent with California law and U.S. law but is how people use the word in everyday language your not lying.

"Did Gebru voluntarily quit according to California law?"

"Is it obviously lying to say resigned?"

These are two separate questions.

Also I'm not convinced that it says anywhere in the California statutes that a letter of resignation requires an end date to be considered a letter of resignation. (It might say that about voluntary quitting, it might say that in case law, but I don't think it says clearly in any statute that to be considered a letter of resignation it requires an end date (which is different from whether or not it was a voluntary quit)

> But also if you don't use it in the way California law uses it but the way U.S. law uses your not lying.

You've given no citations that "US law" is somehow different than California law here. I've stuck to the specific citations directly applicable to their situation, but the idea that if the employer is the one who specifies the end date of employment, it's a firing not a resignation is pretty universal across the western world.

And yes, using "everyday language" to make public statements about a legal situation that if you used the legal definition you'd be making the opposite statement is very much a lie.

Additionally, even the "everyday language" argument has you making a distinction between "voluntary quit" and "voluntarily leave a job or other position". The crux is that if the employer specifies the end date, it's not voluntary on the part of the employee. Both under legal definitions and common parlance.

California law says conditional resignations count when the conditions are met. Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date after she was back from vacation.[1] Those conditions were not met.

California law allows the employer to accelerate the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation.

Gebru advised coworkers to stop writing documents about DEI initiatives. Not to stop work.

[1] https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1334341991795142667

Is it illegal to say they resigned when you fired them? It makes sense to say that they resigned when you accelerated their termination after they said they want to quit, even if you still legally treat it as a normal firing. Pretty sure Google still filed the paperwork's correctly so she got her unemployment benefits, and if they didn't then I trust their lawyers view on it much better than yours.

I don't know if it's illegal. And I don't think it matters. What matters to me it casts doubt on everything else Google claimed. And it's petty.

They didn't just say she resigned. They said they accepted her resignation. You can't accept what wasn't offered.

> > In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...

Next line

> On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit

There wasn't an announced leaving date.

To get back to basics, the definition of resign is "voluntarily leave a job or other position."

It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose.

She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".

Jumping from a legal definition to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition doesn't look great for your argument.

"Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water.

To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fact very well and therefore lied to the press about the circumstances.

You even use the phrase "Gebru firing" in your first post in this particular thread.

I'm sorry if it was confusing. But I was not using the law to argue she was ineligible for unemployment. Or that legally she "voluntarily quit".(though there is at least an argument she did) Only that Google's or Jeff Dean's use of word resigned was not an easily verifiable lie.

I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to work there anymore. It was also a resignation in sense she didn't want to work there anymore.

You're arguing that it's a bold faced law to describe a letter of resignation as such if there is not a specific date. You haven't shown this is true in California law much less English. And if it's true in any sense it's not a lie.

If I went to my boss and said "I don't wanna work here anywhere, I'll check my calendar to find a convenient last day". And they respond with don't bother go home you'll get your two weeks.

You're argument is if someone described that event to someone else as me resigning they'd be a big ol liar?

That doesn't seem right to me.

She didn't say "I don't wanna work here anymore". She said they could discuss a last day when she was back from vacation.

They said her employment was terminated immediately. So no more pay.

Gebru was able and willing to continue working at the time Google terminated her employment. So it was involuntary in California law and English.[1]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26203772

It isn't voluntary if the date and time is chosen for you. California allows the employer to choose the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation.

"An involuntary leaving of work occurs when the employer is the moving party in causing the unemployment of an employee at a time when the employee is able and willing to continue working."[1]

Gebru said she would respond after she was back from vacation.[2] So she was willing to continue working that long at least.

[1] http://carules.elaws.us/code/t.22_d.1_subd.1_d.1_pt1_ch.5_ar...

[2] https://twitter.com/timnitgebru/status/1334341991795142667

The legal definition doesn't matter. She resigned. Google almost surely reported it as a firing so she got her unemployment etc, but in practice they just accelerated her resignation.

Easy to understand example: You say you will quit in 2 weeks. The company fires you on the spot. If people ask the company what happens do you think it is more accurate for them to say you were fired? Would you prefer a company to say you were fired if that happened to you and you used them as a reference?

Pretty sure almost everyone would see that as you quitting and not you being fired. Legally you were fired but in practice you quit.

The factual definition is the same as the legal definition.

I would say they fired me after I gave notice. Saying I resigned would be inaccurate. What I would want them to say doesn't matter. Gebru wanted them to say they fired her. And she didn't give notice.

I would say I resigned before they could fire me if it was the other way around. Or resigned under duress if that's what happened. I know people who did. None of them said they were fired.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com