Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
,Where is it written you cannot fire over political views? Far as I can tell that would be legal. You cannot fire for male or white or age. But politics is not a protected class. I think Google will lose over the whit,e male issue.
Not Exactly. In California, you are protected in terms of a company not being able to fire you for your political beliefs.
That being said, a first year law student would be able to successfully argue that Google did not fire him for his political beliefs.
When Trump announced candidacy, Obama WAS President That said it wasn't a "Oh Trump is being, offensive so we can to" deal, as it goes back to even Bush era, but Trump did cause it to be a lot more "acceptable."
I don't have to read the lawsuit to know the issue. It is over what he said a political view and that trumps how he said it and breaking company protocol, or if because of how he did it it broke company protocol and that supersedes the fact that you cannot fire based on political ideaology.
No, you actually really need to read the lawsuit. What is being said by others in media, social media, etc, or even on here, does not even come close to what is shown in that suit. There's a TON of evidence in there.
I really do not understand how on earth people can speak on something they've never even read. READ IT. Read all of it. It's long, yes, so read it in chunks if you have to, but you really need to read it. It should alarm everyone who isn't some unhinged lunatic. There's a lot of evidence there that this company was adamantly against hiring white people, especially white males, at all costs, and they sure as hell were NOT going to hire Conservatives. THAT evidence is in there, as well. Seriously, just read the dang thing.
,Where is it written you cannot fire over political views? Far as I can tell that would be legal. You cannot fire for male or white or age. But politics is not a protected class. I think Google will lose over the whit,e male issue.
And for the record the female and minority issue has been wizth us over forty years. It is actually a lot better than it used to be.
Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Political Class Period”); (ii) due to their male gender by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Gender Class Period”); and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Race Class Period”) (Political Class Period, Gender Class Period, and Race Class Period referred to collectively, as “Class Periods”). These violations also subject Google to claims for violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 17200
et seq.
You don't have to be a "protected class" to face discrimination, and no, it's not okay in the state of CA.
Quote:
Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees due to their perceived conservative political views violates California Labor Code section 1101 and 1102
et seq.
I mean, it's IN the lawsuit. Try actually READING it before throwing out what you think you know...
PART 3. PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES [920 - 1138.5] ( Part 3 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )
CHAPTER 5. Political Affiliations [1101 - 1106] ( Chapter 5 enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90. )
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.
...1102.
No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
(Enacted by Stats. 1937, Ch. 90.)
You know how long that took me to find that in the lawsuit and then find the actual code? Less time than it took you all to read the posts on here and argue with me about them including the Conservative discrimination. So, are we all done arguing over your false assumptions about whether or not trashing on them for their political views is legit or not?
Employees at Google who express "conservative viewpoints in politically-charged debates" may find themselves blacklisted by managers at the company, alleges an explosive new lawsuit.
And by blacklisted, that means their names may appear on actual lists, the suit contends.
Google employees who identify as conservative say they have complained to HR and senior management about the blacklists.
These allegations are part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of fired Google engineer James Damore that seeks to represent white males and conservatives who feel like they've been the target of discrimination.
...one manager wrote on one internal forum, "I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever."
Another manager wrote in another, "I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today."
The lawsuit cites another post from another hiring manager that said, "If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit... I’m perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my [d*ckhead] box... Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly)."...
ALL of those, with emails and messages as proof, are in the first 1/4 of the lawsuit...surely you can all read at least that much.
Google is very much in violation against these people not just because they were white and male, but because they were "perceived" as Conservative. One of the plaintiffs isn't even a Conservative, but they trashed him anyway because they THOUGHT he was. (You can find that out if you READ the lawsuit.)
And while a lot of what was said by managers and Directors looks very similar to what we see from liberals right here on this forum....you can't do that crap at work.
There's PLENTY of evidence in there that they fired him for his political views.
No, you actually really need to read the lawsuit. What is being said by others in media, social media, etc, or even on here, does not even come close to what is shown in that suit. There's a TON of evidence in there.
I really do not understand how on earth people can speak on something they've never even read. READ IT. Read all of it. It's long, yes, so read it in chunks if you have to, but you really need to read it. It should alarm everyone who isn't some unhinged lunatic. There's a lot of evidence there that this company was adamantly against hiring white people, especially white males, at all costs, and they sure as hell were NOT going to hire Conservatives. THAT evidence is in there, as well. Seriously, just read the dang thing.
Except for the fact that the majority of employees at Google are white males, and percentage goes way up when you deal with managers and above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
But arguing that they fired him because of his sex and race doesn't get you anywhere. That's illegal too.
I answered this earlier. He was fired for being a piece of ****. I can guarantee you that turds are not a protected class, they are flushed like all other turds that start to stink up a place.
There's PLENTY of evidence in there that they fired him for his political views.
There is however apparently an exception where the view conflicts with the companies "business. model". I can see Google climbing all over that one.
I would think though that the plantiffs are in pretty good shape on the white male thing.b
Except for the fact that the majority of employees at Google are white males, and percentage goes way up when you deal with managers and above.
I answered this earlier. He was fired for being a piece of ****. I can guarantee you that turds are not a protected class, they are flushed like all other turds that start to stink up a place.
Once again, if a corp is 100% male and white (and in California conservative), and the root cause of someone being fired is that they are white or male (or in California conservative), that is still discrimination, and a violation of FEHA regulations. What the company composition is, is entirely irrelevant to the cause of the firing.
Once again, if a corp is 100% male and white (and in California conservative), and the root cause of someone being fired is that they are white or male (or in California conservative), that is still discrimination, and a violation of FEHA regulations. What the company composition is, is entirely irrelevant to the cause of the firing.
Considering the post I quoted was talking about how Google refused to HIRE white males, I stand by my response.
While you are technically correct, your example is a bit out there. If a lawyer could find a strong argument that a company that was 100% white males, fired someone for being a white male, they should have an automatic induction into the Hall of Fame.
He wasn't fired because he was white, he wasn't fired because he was male, and the only leftover question is if it was over political beliefs.
He will get blown out of the water, and I hope we can have additional discourse when that happens.
That being said, he identifies as a Conservative Republican, and his main point was that women are inferior.
I don't think that's political at all. Is the Republican stance that women are inferior?
Considering the post I quoted was talking about how Google refused to HIRE white males, I stand by my response.
While you are technically correct, your example is a bit out there. If a lawyer could find a strong argument that a company that was 100% white males, fired someone for being a white male, they should have an automatic induction into the Hall of Fame.
He wasn't fired because he was white, he wasn't fired because he was male, and the only leftover question is if it was over political beliefs.
He will get blown out of the water, and I hope we can have additional discourse when that happens.
That being said, he identifies as a Conservative Republican, and his main point was that women are inferior.
I don't think that's political at all. Is the Republican stance that women are inferior?
Nah. Google will get killed by the internal emails and social media. They used the wrong words. They establish a climate hostile to white males.
If that dude could get some sexy women to befriend him it would all be over. But he can't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That said it wasn't a "Oh Trump is being, offensive so we can to" deal, as it goes back to even Bush era, but Trump did cause it to be a lot more "acceptable."
