James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

Post Reply
User avatar
Orlylicious
Posts: 6697
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2012 4:02 pm

James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#1

Post by Orlylicious » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:24 am

The alt right is going berserk over this, they've been in love with Damore since he was fired and they think these lawsuits are the coolest thing ever. This is getting picked up by mainstream media.





A suit brought by Barnes Law: "Google, Twitter face new lawsuits alleging discrimination against conservative voices"

WaPo:
Google, Twitter face new lawsuits alleging discrimination against conservative voices
By Elizabeth Dwoskin and Craig Timberg January 8 at 3:08 PM

James Damore, the former Google engineer who was fired after distributing a memo questioning the company’s diversity policies, filed a class-action lawsuit Monday claiming that the technology giant discriminates against white men and conservatives. :roll:

Damore’s suit came on the same day that conservative publisher Charles C. Johnson sued Twitter for banning him from the platform in 2015. The cases are the latest signs of a broad effort by some conservatives to challenge technology companies on the grounds that they favor liberal or moderate voices, reflecting the prevailing political sensibilities in Silicon Valley. The technology industry’s crackdown against users accused of “hate speech” after August’s “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville has fueled allegations of political bias against companies that are playing a crucial role is disseminating speech worldwide.

The suit by Damore, filed in Santa Clara, Calif., alleges discrimination by Google against men, people of the “Caucasian race,” and people with perceived conservative political views. The suit says that Google employees who expressed views deviating from the majority at Google on politics or on employment practices, including “diversity hiring policies, bias sensitivity, and social justice,” were “singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google,” in violation of their legal rights. Damore’s fellow plaintiff in the class action is another Google employee, a former software engineer named David Gudeman.

Google fired Damore after he wrote a 10-page memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber: How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion.” Though initially circulated internally in July, it reached a wide audience in August when Motherboard published the memo, saying the “anti-diversity memo” had gone “internally viral” at the Mountain View, Calif.-based technology company. The memo said that “genetic differences” may explain “why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership.”
***
The American legal system has long given wide latitude to technology companies and the manner in which they choose to enforce their terms of service. But the suit makes particular reference to the California state constitution’s guarantee of free speech. Courts in that state have in the past highlighted the importance of free speech rights even when exercised on private property, making the state potentially more amenable to Johnson’s claims about censorship on a private online platform such as Twitter, said Jonathan Zittrain, faculty director of Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. “Of all the places to bring a long-shot case like this, California would be the place,” Zittrain said.
Much more at https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... af652bf4fd

TechCrunch:
Google said it fired Damore for violating its code of conduct and advancing “harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.” Damore meanwhile began a kind of press tour, denouncing the company for being close-minded and worse. In an interview with CNBC, for example, he compared being a conservative at Google to “being gay in the 1950s.”

In a press conference this afternoon, Damore’s attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, a California representative for the Republican National Committee, elaborated more on the very lengthy complaint and argued that her current clients are far from alone.

In fact, she said she spoke with “dozens” of employees at Google to formulate the lawsuit and that she expects there will be “future lawsuits” to explore, as well.

To underscore her point that Google’s policies need to be amended, she cited so-called TGIF meetings at Google, telling reporters that during Damore’s tenure, “managers were called out and shamed and mocked if they didn’t have 50/50 gender parity in [their respective] units.” She called the goal “fair” but asked, rhetorically: “How do you get there? Job fairs. Making yourself more attractive. Not by saying, ‘White guy, you can’t have that job because that’s reserved for a woman or [other] minority.'”
https://techcrunch.com/2018/01/08/james ... ervatives/




Geoffrey Miller ‏Verified account
@primalpoly

The most important lawsuit in modern American history, by @JamesADamore, against the most powerful company that has ever existed, @Google, about whether it can keep imposing its political agenda on the world. So, yeah, it's kinda worth reading.


Tons of Zibits :dance:




Avatar: Toni Holt Kramer, founder of a Trump fan club called The Trumpettes, taken New Years Eve at Mar-A-Lago.

User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#2

Post by neeneko » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:32 am

I am guessing this suit has pretty much zero chance of being successful, but will advance the legal and lecture circuit careers of the people involved. Damore has already become a right wing darling and will probably be quite comfortable at any number of conservative tech companies.



User avatar
Sterngard Friegen
Posts: 41573
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 12:32 am
Location: Trump International - Malibu

Re: James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#3

Post by Sterngard Friegen » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:38 am

The new protected class: male, white, right wing snowflakes.



User avatar
neeneko
Posts: 600
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2017 9:08 am

Re: James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#4

Post by neeneko » Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:48 am

Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:38 am
The new protected class: male, white, right wing snowflakes.
Well, their entire schtick is that nothing should be done that doesn't benefit them first and foremost, so if women and minorities get protections, they should get the same ones with priority!



NMgirl
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#5

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:13 am

Google has been publishing the stats on diversity in the company since 2014. Business Insider gives us the info from the June, 2017, report:
Google has released its latest report showing the ethnic and gender makeup of its employees.

Here's the summary:

75% of Google's leaders globally are men
2% of its employees in the US are black
Just 20% of tech employees are women
But 48% of non-tech employees are women
More than a third of Google's US employees are Asian
http://www.businessinsider.com/google-d ... 017-2017-6



NMgirl
Posts: 2227
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2016 12:02 am

Re: James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#6

Post by NMgirl » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:21 am

Who is David Gudeman, the other plaintiff in this lawsuit?
Gudeman, Damore’s co-plaintiff, worked as an engineer at Google for three years before being let go in 2016. The lawsuit claims that he left a comment on a document written by a female Google engineer in which Gudeman asserted that white men are “victims of a racist and sexist political movement and it is not their fault.”

:snippity:

“Gudeman’s comments were not well-received by other supposedly open-minded Googlers,” the lawsuit states.

Gudeman also posted supportive comments on internal forums about then-President-elect Donald Trump in the fall of 2016 and bickered with a Muslim co-worker who wrote about his fears of religious discrimination. Gudeman wrote that he looked into the employee’s background and questioned him about a recent trip to Pakistan, according to the lawsuit. These comments led to his termination in December 2016.

“Google HR stated that Gudeman had accused [his co-worker] of terrorism based on [the co-worker]’s religion, and this was unacceptable,” the lawsuit says.
https://www.engadget.com/2018/01/08/goo ... imination/



User avatar
DejaMoo
Posts: 3365
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 1:19 pm
Occupation: Agent of ZOG

Re: James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#7

Post by DejaMoo » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:07 pm

neeneko wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:48 am
Sterngard Friegen wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:38 am
The new protected class: male, white, right wing snowflakes.
Well, their entire schtick is that nothing should be done that doesn't benefit them first and foremost, so if women and minorities get protections, they should get the same ones with priority!
David Grover has described the basic personality type that we focus on here on The Fogbow. We see it in the so-called patriot movement, we see it in the MRA types - basically, it's the aggrieved right wing.
30% of every OECD country polls fascist. That's just always been the case, for 150 years. In most modern wealthy democracies those people are afraid to express their opinions, because its commonly understood that people who hold those opinions are generally detrimental to the common good. That was the political lesson of WWII.

In the US however they get their own news channels and one-half of the political power, because for some reason around 1980 we all started feeling sorry for the narcissistic fantasists and sentimentalists that call themselves "movement conservatives," who told us they felt bad because they were left out of what they called "the Liberal consensus."

The Liberal consensus was really just an agreement not to let the aforementioned narcissists do what they do best, which is to monopolize the conversation and claim its all about *me* and *my pain* and what about *my people*, which in general prevents us from confronting actual real live reality, like genuinely poor people and genuine disasters like climate change. And we let down our guard, forgetting that these 30% always feel bad, because they really have nothing more to their belief system than a heightened sense of persecution coupled to a heightened sense of their worth. Everything else - their politics, economics, religion, sociology - is an attempt to rationalize those two basic principles: "I oughta be in charge, but my inferiors won't let me."

30 years later people in the media think they're entertaining and sell eyeballs so they give them a seat at the table, and they don't realize the fascists want all the seats and have bad table manners besides. And while the rest of us would like to pay attention to the reality we've ignored since Reagan first pretended he was President, the media and the conversation is dominated by these 30%, who refuse to give up their fantasyland, just as we should have known they would.

I'm not normally reductive when it comes to people, but that these 30% would hallucinate that they're hard done by and at the same time threaten the rest of us over their perceived injury is as predictable as flowers blooming in spring.

[We need to know this] because these people are dangerous. When I say that the liberal consensus was all about making them feel bad so they'd keep these opinions to themselves, about putting a little responsibility around their first amendment rights, I'm not joking. When Reagan killed the fairness doctrine he freed these people - who were his people - to say whatever they wanted. But they're largely incapable of understanding consequences or causality; the personality operates at a level of wish fulfillment and childish vindictiveness that means they really don't know what they're saying. They don't understand that people die because of the things they say.

I'm about as much of a first-amendment absolutist as you can be as a Canadian who's lived at the far western edge of California for 20 years. But these people present a problem: they will shout fire in a crowded theatre, whether there's a fire or not, and afterward claim to be the victim, claim in fact to be more of a victim than the people who were trampled and physically injured as a result. The because part of that, it turns out, isn't really all that important; this personality type always sees itself as aggrieved, and so they'll come up with whatever deluded reason they need to in order to explain how they got hurt worse than everyone else.



User avatar
bob
Posts: 22565
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 12:22 pm

Re: James Damore vs. Google: Class Action Labor Lawsuit Superior Court CA, Santa Clara 18CV321529

#8

Post by bob » Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:56 pm

Orlylicious wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:24 am
In a press conference this afternoon, Damore’s attorney, Harmeet Dhillon, a California representative for the Republican National Committee, elaborated more on the very lengthy complaint and argued that her current clients are far from alone.
Dhillon runs a small litigation firm; a 2014 profile of her.


Imagex4 Imagex2 Imagex2 Imagex2

Post Reply

Return to “Media & Social Media”