He was involved in Mozilla from the beginning. My gut tells me he did what he thought was right to allow Mozilla to move forward once he realized the bad PR was not going away no matter how hard he tried to fix or assure folks they had nothing to worry about. Obviously this is conjecture on my part.
In such situations, it's impossible to tell whether it's a forced resignation or not, unless the people who really know (the board and CEO) want to talk about it.
Note that labor law sometimes treats even explicit resignations as equivalent to dismissal - "constructive termination" - when pressured by a intolerable situation:
However, the relationship between a board and CEO, and the power and discretion of the CEO, is quite different than the situation of most employees, so a lot of the same worker-protection logic would not likely apply.
So I find this an interesting item about how California law is so explicitly protective of political participation by general employees... but not likely a cause for action in the Eich situation.
It is also possible they told him that if he didn't resign, he would be terminated.
From the article, "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."
Unless he wants to make a mess for Mozilla (and I don't think it sounds like he does), we'll probably never know what really happened.
Yes, and no one with any basis for knowledge has suggested that the fact pattern which supports constructive dismissal existed. If you have actual facts supporting a claim that Eich's resignation was an instance of constructive dismissal, rather than pure speculation, go ahead and present them.
> "In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign."
I'd imagine that's somewhat hard to argue as the CEO.
Van Vleck Turner & Zaller LLP specializes in all aspects of California labor and employment law.
It would be surpising for a law firm to publish something blatantly obtuse on the subject.
More likely, the departure was negotiated with a non-disparagement clause and a payout.
A legal action by the disgruntled employee would be terminal for mozilla's mission and brand. The could not risk a trial--it would be worse publicity--so they would settle. But this should have been anticipated and already settled, however. This is why HR people are employed and why executive failures are typically quiet.
On the merits, there is public evidence that The Mozilla Foundation chief executive was publicly hostile to the departed executive of MoCo.Due to the corporate structure of mozilla, the Foundation executive can be hostile to MoCo ceo without being in a position of legal unsubordination.[+] Which basically render's your point moot.
_________
[+] The foundation is the 100% owner (and thus in a Parent-child relation) of MoCo.
Well, at the moment, Eich is unpopular with some people because he supported a cause they really didn't agree with, and because his failure to deal with the fallout risked causing harm to Mozilla.
If he actively took steps which caused more damage in the respect, I think it's fair to say that he wouldn't come out of it well.
Oh that's and easy task! You can always create a career out of offending half of the country and making the other half passionately support you. The talkshow pundit circus could certainly need somebody who positioned himself as "exposing the hypocrisies of the liberal valley elite.
He should be reimbursed for the ignorant who forced him to leave his position.
People want tolerance towards their viewpoint, but will become so vile towards someone who doesn't agree with them? Yup, that needs to stop. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. This includes gays AND anti-gays.
Just by the simple fact that gays will not tolerate someone saying homosexuality is wrong, perfectly displays the point.
31 comments
[ 35.1 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threadNote that labor law sometimes treats even explicit resignations as equivalent to dismissal - "constructive termination" - when pressured by a intolerable situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal#United_S...
However, the relationship between a board and CEO, and the power and discretion of the CEO, is quite different than the situation of most employees, so a lot of the same worker-protection logic would not likely apply.
So I find this an interesting item about how California law is so explicitly protective of political participation by general employees... but not likely a cause for action in the Eich situation.
best ROI on a 1K spent 5 years ago :)
In serious, it sounds and looks like a witch hunt, which i happily have added my [anonymous] voice to.
From the article, "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."
Unless he wants to make a mess for Mozilla (and I don't think it sounds like he does), we'll probably never know what really happened.
https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/
More details: https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignat...
> "In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign."
I'd imagine that's somewhat hard to argue as the CEO.
It would be surpising for a law firm to publish something blatantly obtuse on the subject.
More likely, the departure was negotiated with a non-disparagement clause and a payout.
A legal action by the disgruntled employee would be terminal for mozilla's mission and brand. The could not risk a trial--it would be worse publicity--so they would settle. But this should have been anticipated and already settled, however. This is why HR people are employed and why executive failures are typically quiet.
On the merits, there is public evidence that The Mozilla Foundation chief executive was publicly hostile to the departed executive of MoCo.Due to the corporate structure of mozilla, the Foundation executive can be hostile to MoCo ceo without being in a position of legal unsubordination.[+] Which basically render's your point moot.
_________
[+] The foundation is the 100% owner (and thus in a Parent-child relation) of MoCo.
And constructive dismissal is a really hard thing to prove and you have to sue for breach of contract.
The courts usually see through obvious window-dressing like that.
And that is not considering the fact that CA is an "at will" state
Anyway, can you imagine the ruckus that would ensue if Eich took Mozilla to court?!
If he actively took steps which caused more damage in the respect, I think it's fair to say that he wouldn't come out of it well.
"Mozilla (the maker of the Firefox search engine)"
Really?
Mozilla does run a Firefox-branded search page.
People want tolerance towards their viewpoint, but will become so vile towards someone who doesn't agree with them? Yup, that needs to stop. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion. This includes gays AND anti-gays.
Just by the simple fact that gays will not tolerate someone saying homosexuality is wrong, perfectly displays the point.