They mention complaints to HR and dismissive responses - you'd think they wouldn't lie about such things. It's pretty obvious to me that "bash white men" was an acceptable thing to say at Google.
Twenty pages of memes presented as "Exhibit B", in a case where the plaintiffs claim to have been discriminated due to them being white men. They actually brought a class action suit because, quote, "Google was unable to respond to logical arguments".
This is the very definition of "missing the forest for the trees". Out of all possible ways to present their (surprisingly not as bad as I expected) arguments, they chose the one that make them look like children.
I think that, in this case, I will be rooting for the lawyers.
It seems pretty obvious that he and his fellow complainant were fired for the quality/content of their ideas, not their class.
To me, there is a large difference between discriminating against someone because of their beliefs vs. their skin color.
Would it make sense that a pharmaceutical company needs to keep working with a scientist that only believes in homeopathic treatments? Does a construction company need to keep working with a engineer that the believes the earth is flat?
Well, we can't discriminate against people who believe women need to be covered or earth is 6000 years old, so who ever in charge draws the line. The morals change all the time.
8 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 26.3 ms ] threadThis is an interesting document because the lawsuit will be mostly about what Google did and said. This document this tells one side of that story.
Importantly, this doesn't just vaguely talk about "discrimination", but lists many specific instances of it. It's worth a read.
Also, twenty pages of memes...
Twenty pages of memes presented as "Exhibit B", in a case where the plaintiffs claim to have been discriminated due to them being white men. They actually brought a class action suit because, quote, "Google was unable to respond to logical arguments".
This is the very definition of "missing the forest for the trees". Out of all possible ways to present their (surprisingly not as bad as I expected) arguments, they chose the one that make them look like children.
I think that, in this case, I will be rooting for the lawyers.
To me, there is a large difference between discriminating against someone because of their beliefs vs. their skin color.
Would it make sense that a pharmaceutical company needs to keep working with a scientist that only believes in homeopathic treatments? Does a construction company need to keep working with a engineer that the believes the earth is flat?
So discriminating against Muslims is okay?