James Damore Sues Google, Alleging Discrimination Against Conservative White Men - Sensationalist Headlines

[url=https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/01/09/576682765/james-damore-sues-google-alleging-discrimination-against-conservative-white-men]Source[/url] [QUOTE]James Damore, the former Google engineer who was fired after he wrote a memo sharply criticizing diversity efforts at the company, has filed a class-action lawsuit against his former employer alleging that the tech giant discriminates against conservative white men. "Google executives and employees condemned Damore, his memo, and his views," according to the lawsuit, filed Monday. Damore says he was laughed at, personally insulted and attacked, before ultimately being fired in August. Damore is joined in his suit by David Gudeman, a former Google employee who was fired in December 2016. Gudeman used an internal forum to question a Muslim co-worker's account of being targeted by the FBI on the basis of his religion and suggested that the FBI had legitimate reasons to investigate the co-worker. Google human resources fired him, saying it was unacceptable to accuse a colleague of terrorism based on their religion. Gudeman had previously been cited by HR, according to the suit, after he saw a female Google manager's advice on how white men should respond to statements about bias and compared it to something "slave owners would have written for their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters." The suit also says there are other potential class members and includes more than 80 pages of allegedly offensive or discriminatory posts made on a variety of platforms. The first item under "Anti-conservative postings" was an anonymous Kermit tea meme reading, "I think all of Trump's supporters are deplorable for backing an openly racist candidate, but that's none of my business." Under "Anti-Caucasian" postings was an anonymous comment telling white, male and/or straight people that "there are times to just shut up and listen. Try for some empathy. You'll learn a lot." [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Lambeth;53039256]Damore is joined in his suit by David Gudeman, a former Google employee who was fired in December 2016. Gudeman used an internal forum to question a Muslim co-worker's account of being targeted by the FBI on the basis of his religion and suggested that the FBI had legitimate reasons to investigate the co-worker.[/QUOTE] Sounds like a great guy

[QUOTE=Paramud;53039273]Sounds like a great guy[/QUOTE] This is one of those legal battles where everyone involved is an asshole. [url]https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121[/url]

[QUOTE=Paramud;53039273]Sounds like a great guy[/QUOTE] That quote didn't provide nearly enough context for you to form a negative opinion of him. Simply suggesting that an accusation of racial discrimination is untrue makes someone an asshole to you?

Isn't this the guy who believes women are inferior engineers?

[URL]https://www.scribd.com/document/368688363/James-Damore-vs-Google-Class-Action-Lawsuit#fullscreen&from_embed[/URL] Full document here. [QUOTE=Psychokitten;53039402]Isn't this the guy who believes women are inferior engineers?[/QUOTE] Nope, he was the guy that believed google's approach to attracting women to the tech field was going about it wrong and that studies suggest framing tech work in another way would be more beneficial to getting their interest.

[QUOTE=Psychokitten;53039402]Isn't this the guy who believes women are inferior engineers?[/QUOTE] No. He wrote a big document that called the "Google Memo" that basically explored why there are less women in tech jobs. No where in the document did it call women inferior. It explored why men and women make different life choices and how it'd be best to encourage women to join tech without setting artificial quotas on hiring. However, it got characterized in the media as a hit piece against women and the media stated it called women inferior to men even though that doesn't appear anywhere in the actual document. Here is the memo itself: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversitymemo-static.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf[/url]

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53039356]This is one of those legal battles where everyone involved is an asshole. [url]https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121[/url][/QUOTE] yikes! that twitter account is trash. she uses Curtis Yarvin as an example of a "wrongthinker" who shouldn't be allowed on-campus (Alex Jones is also on that list), but those people are not "wrongthinkers" they're piece-of-shit racists: Curtis Yarvin believes that whites have higher IQs than blacks for genetic reasons and has even argued that some races are more suited to slavery than others. [media]https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950449772300787713[/media] that's not "firing anyone with a different opinion". the first post is from HR, the second is from an employee. a few posts from random employees of over 73,992 total is not an official "policy of discrimination". also, making your fellow coworkers uncomfortable is not "having a different opinion" -- that's called "being an asshole". [media]https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950452593565798400[/media] again, that's not "basing promotions on race and gender." that's a comment about how there's not a lot of women or POC deciding who gets promoted, and those being considered were mostly white men. Burchett's statement begs the question "why are there not more women or POC being considered for promotion?", therefore we can probably assume that the diversity of the pool of people being considered for promotion is disproportional to those who went for review. Burchett is not giving promotions based on race and no judge would agree that's a formal policy and an example of the systematic discrimination needed to win this case. [media]https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950456490887909378[/media] there's nothing wrong with this other than her being disgusted with poly relationships. it was a post in the poly sub-forum ffs

[QUOTE=Kigen;53039441]No. He wrote a big document that called the "Google Memo" that basically explored why there are less women in tech jobs. No where in the document did it call women inferior. It explored why men and women make different life choices and how it'd be best to encourage women to join tech without setting artificial quotas on hiring. However, it got characterized in the media as a hit piece against women and the media stated it called women inferior to men even though that doesn't appear anywhere in the actual document. Here is the memo itself: [url]https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversitymemo-static.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf[/url][/QUOTE] The best part is that its well researched and even been verified as creating convincing policy by people in the fields that he was attempting to discuss and debate about. Experts agreed with his basis, but differed on his conclusions in a professional manner rather than a personal one.

[QUOTE=Foda;53039449]yikes! that twitter account is trash.[/QUOTE] Irrelevant, she can be an actual Nazi for all I care. Her posts are still internal Google communications and that's unacceptable in any work environment.

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53039457]The best part is that its well researched and even been verified as creating convincing policy by people in the fields that he was attempting to discuss and debate about. Experts agreed with his basis, but differed on his conclusions in a professional manner rather than a personal one.[/QUOTE] the problem was that it was written and posted in an overly assertive way that wasn't friendly and didn't welcome the opportunity for a discussion. he did it in a hostile way that he knew would make his coworkers feel uncomfortable, and cause flamewars. that's why he was fired. look at it this way: if someone here at facepunch made a giant post like that and reposted it to every sub-forum they'd probably be banned within minutes.

[QUOTE=Foda;53039476] look at it this way: if someone here at facepunch made a giant post like that and reposted it to every sub-forum they'd probably be banned within minutes.[/QUOTE] True, but political view is not a protected class on Facepunch, and there aren't rules here stating someone can't be banned (fired) for no reason. James Damore has a case in California, but only California. If this were any other state he'd be out of luck.

The memo is an overhyped reddit post with at least one of the scientists whose research he quoted saying "no my research doesn't prove that claim". His propagating the memo in the way he did and his actions more than justified his firing, shitcanned by HR for making a hostile work environment. Immediately after doing that he went around the table of the most disingenuous right-wing personalities and appeared on all their shows, sealing his credibility away for good and retroactively justifying his firing several times over by showing just how much he didn't want to be there.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53039479]True, but political view is not a protected class on Facepunch, and there aren't rules here stating someone can't be banned (fired) for no reason. James Damore has a case in California, but only California. If this were any other state he'd be out of luck.[/QUOTE] But he wasn't fired for his political view, and it wasn't for no reason. Seems you didn't read the part of the post you didn't quote.

[QUOTE=bitches;53039485]But he wasn't fired for his political view, and it wasn't for no reason. Seems you didn't read the part of the post you didn't quote.[/QUOTE] His legal argument is that he was; see: This court case.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53039493]His legal argument is that he was; see: This court case.[/QUOTE] He would have a much stronger case if he hadn't broken company policy as well.

[QUOTE=1/4 Life;53039462]Irrelevant, she can be an actual Nazi for all I care. Her posts are still internal Google communications and that's unacceptable in any work environment.[/QUOTE] my point was that out-of-context random google employee comments on their forum are not indicative of official google policy, and both the twitter account and lawsuit are extremely misleading. things like "rejecting anti-diversity beliefs" is not the same as being "anti-conservative". in fact, most of the comments seem to be in-response to non-mentioned/screen-captured posts that were meant to cause flamewars.

Here is the filing directly from the source. [url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6p02fijxrd7c6m/20180108%20Damore%20-%20Complaint_fs.pdf?dl=0[/url]

[QUOTE=Foda;53039503]my point was that out-of-context random google employee comments on their forum are not indicative of official google policy, and both the twitter account and lawsuit are extremely misleading. things like "rejecting anti-diversity beliefs" is not the same as being "anti-conservative". in fact, most of the comments seem to be in-response to non-mentioned/screen-captured posts that were meant to cause flamewars.[/QUOTE] Sure, but the HR responses included to the complaints are.

Wouldn't make too many judgements on this until discovery puts this stuff more in context(If the case moves forward). Pages 12-13 are pretty bad though.

I have a hard time being convinced that Google discriminates against white men in particular, considering how many white men they seem to employ in positions of leadership. As for discriminating against conservative opinion, some of the cited emails and exchanges make the case that some people who work at management or middle management levels within the company have a very low tolerance for political opinions they see as unacceptable, but it's hard to make the case that this has anything to do with why Damore and Gudeman were fired. Additionally, does California actually have protections for companies not firing their employees over political belief or affiliation? [QUOTE=Cliff2;53039563]Wouldn't make too many judgements on this until discovery puts this stuff more in context(If the case moves forward). Pages 12-13 are pretty bad though.[/QUOTE] It's impossible to say if it's true or not, and Damore's actions after being fired certainly hurt his credibility quite a lot, but if the whole exchange with Hidalgo really ended with Google telling Damore that he should work from home instead of instantly firing Hidalgo then that looks really bad for Google.

[QUOTE=Foda;53039449] [media]https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950456490887909378[/media] there's nothing wrong with this other than her being disgusted with poly relationships. it was a post in the poly sub-forum ffs[/QUOTE] She tagged "let's go back to having kings also I hate women and I'm a nazi" RooshV in this. Is she sharing it with him or making fun of him?

can't believe that google discriminated against me just for going around with a pair of calipers and practicing phrenology on my female coworkers' skulls

I don't think he would have even been fired if it didn't blow up. He was an entry-level employee and there are thousands of people with equivalent or better qualifications available who'd love his job. If you're in a position like that and you kick up a large fuss and make your company look bad, you're fucked.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;53039694]Additionally, does California actually have protections for companies not firing their employees over political belief or affiliation?[/QUOTE] This is my big question, really. I mean obviously you don't discriminate against things like race, gender, other things people can't control, but you're not born into a political party. You can not only choose your opinions, but you can change them, so I don't see it as "discrimination" on anywhere near the same level as racial/sexual discrimination.

[url]http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=LAB&sectionNum=1101[/url] [quote]1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. (Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)[/quote] is the relevant law. This is gonna fall onto whether the courts determine if damore's memo was political in nature. In which case, there's an example in that suit of someone getting a bonus for arguing against it. I doubt Gudeman's got a case unless he gets the other coworkers to back up his story. His part is all hearsay.

[QUOTE] Under "Anti-Caucasian" postings[/QUOTE] I wish people would stop using Caucasian as a stand in for white. A very small number of people in the U.S. are actually from the region. In this case, it makes it sound like it's anti-Georgian or anti-Abkhazian or something.

[QUOTE=Kigen;53039441]No. He wrote a big document that called the "Google Memo" that basically explored why there are less women in tech jobs. No where in the document did it call women inferior. It explored why men and women make different life choices and how it'd be best to encourage women to join tech without setting artificial quotas on hiring. However, it got characterized in the media as a hit piece against women and the media stated it called women inferior to men even though that doesn't appear anywhere in the actual document. Here is the memo itself: [URL]https://web.archive.org/web/20170809220001/https://diversitymemo-static.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE] I read through his memo a few months ago because I couldn't believe how the media was against this guy and.... like what the fuck. There is literally [I]nothing[/I] in the whole memo that suggests that he is sexist or racist or anything like that. He doesn't think that women are inferior and complains about actual issues like discrimination within Google and how they offer courses and benefits but only to certain people of certain race, gender and ethnicity. And simply exclude others. He offers genuine improvements like better learn capabilities and does talk to some theories and studies about how women tend to learn a bit more differently than men (since they also think differently) and that there should be better ways to encourage women and get them more interested in tech jobs. Like holy shit. Did [I]any[/I] of the media outlets that made headlines against the guy even read the memo? He is like pro-women in tech jobs but thinks that the current way is just not the right way because it discriminates other people. The same applies to the way Google treats people of different gender, ethnicity and race.

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;53040875]I read through his memo a few months ago because I couldn't believe how the media was against this guy and.... like what the fuck. There is literally [I]nothing[/I] in the whole memo that suggests that he is sexist or racist or anything like that. He doesn't think that women are inferior and complains about actual issues like discrimination within Google and how they offer courses and benefits but only to certain people of certain race, gender and ethnicity. Like holy shit. Did [I]any[/I] of the media outlets that made headlines against the guy even read the memo?[/QUOTE] They are concerned with drumming up hysteria, not truth.

[t]https://i.imgur.com/ibtpaRY.png[/t] what does a corporate-Google approved furry internal mailing list look like