![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I am not a lawyer (that would be a large chunk of my husband's family, but not us). This is not legal advice.
Anyway.
There was a Thing that happened at Google recently, in which an engineer who was never named by google vomited up on internal systems the Larry Summers argument about why men are so overrepresented in high paying, high status tech / science / etc. jobs. It's a classic evil argument. Discrimination produces an outcome, and then afterwards, the beneficiaries claim that it wasn't the discrimination -- this is what the victims of discrimination _wanted_. You don't want to argue with their _choice_, do you?!? I'm not sure _why_ they think this is a solid argument for anything other than, they are being an awful human being. Which they are. I assume this is one of those denial mechanisms that allows people to enjoys the fruits of someone else without feeling guilty about it. Most of us have been there, and we should feel bad about it when it is brought to our attention.
Anyway. The engineer was fired, self-identified, said he would pursue legal remedies, and it looks like maybe? again NOT a lawyer, he's going to claim some kind of retaliation under California labor law intended to protect people engaged in worker organizing type behavior and speech. Which is really interesting for someone trying to appeal to a conservative end of society, with a decent chance of backfiring politically even if it succeeds legally.
But will it succeed legally? I am not a lawyer. But I did find this!
https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18271/is-james-damore-a-fide-master
I will say straight up that if you get a bunch of people on Stack Exchange committed to finding out that you lied on your resume, you really better have done every single thing you claim on that resume. And it looks like maybe that was not entirely the case here.
Here is why this matters:
http://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/lying-a-job-application-or-resume.htm
We _don't_ know precisely why google fired him -- they didn't say, at least, not as far as I have been able to find (but if you found it, I want to see it!). This article however says:
"The employer may be able to get the lawsuit thrown out, on the theory that the employee should not be able to sue for wrongful termination because the employee should never have been hired in the first place. If the case isn't thrown out and the employee can prove wrongful termination, the employee's damages might be limited. Typically, courts allow employees in this situation to collect damages for lost pay only up until the employee's lie is discovered. Once the employer learns of the fraud, even if it happens because of the employee's lawsuit, damages are cut off."
So. Engineer better be able to prove every single solitary thing on that resume. Or this case seems deeply flawed (again, I am not a lawyer). But honestly, I would not be even a little bit surprised to discover that he maybe shaded the truth or outright lied about one or more things on that resume. Because if there is one thing people do who are trying to preserve their position of privilege, it is lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
ETA:
That said, here's an employment lawyer who is still willing to help people in California who lied on their resume:
https://www.petrofskyfirm.com/articles/i-lied-on-my-resume-and-i-m-scared-it-will-affect-my-case-what-should-i-do
Anyway.
There was a Thing that happened at Google recently, in which an engineer who was never named by google vomited up on internal systems the Larry Summers argument about why men are so overrepresented in high paying, high status tech / science / etc. jobs. It's a classic evil argument. Discrimination produces an outcome, and then afterwards, the beneficiaries claim that it wasn't the discrimination -- this is what the victims of discrimination _wanted_. You don't want to argue with their _choice_, do you?!? I'm not sure _why_ they think this is a solid argument for anything other than, they are being an awful human being. Which they are. I assume this is one of those denial mechanisms that allows people to enjoys the fruits of someone else without feeling guilty about it. Most of us have been there, and we should feel bad about it when it is brought to our attention.
Anyway. The engineer was fired, self-identified, said he would pursue legal remedies, and it looks like maybe? again NOT a lawyer, he's going to claim some kind of retaliation under California labor law intended to protect people engaged in worker organizing type behavior and speech. Which is really interesting for someone trying to appeal to a conservative end of society, with a decent chance of backfiring politically even if it succeeds legally.
But will it succeed legally? I am not a lawyer. But I did find this!
https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/18271/is-james-damore-a-fide-master
I will say straight up that if you get a bunch of people on Stack Exchange committed to finding out that you lied on your resume, you really better have done every single thing you claim on that resume. And it looks like maybe that was not entirely the case here.
Here is why this matters:
http://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/employment/lying-a-job-application-or-resume.htm
We _don't_ know precisely why google fired him -- they didn't say, at least, not as far as I have been able to find (but if you found it, I want to see it!). This article however says:
"The employer may be able to get the lawsuit thrown out, on the theory that the employee should not be able to sue for wrongful termination because the employee should never have been hired in the first place. If the case isn't thrown out and the employee can prove wrongful termination, the employee's damages might be limited. Typically, courts allow employees in this situation to collect damages for lost pay only up until the employee's lie is discovered. Once the employer learns of the fraud, even if it happens because of the employee's lawsuit, damages are cut off."
So. Engineer better be able to prove every single solitary thing on that resume. Or this case seems deeply flawed (again, I am not a lawyer). But honestly, I would not be even a little bit surprised to discover that he maybe shaded the truth or outright lied about one or more things on that resume. Because if there is one thing people do who are trying to preserve their position of privilege, it is lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
ETA:
That said, here's an employment lawyer who is still willing to help people in California who lied on their resume:
https://www.petrofskyfirm.com/articles/i-lied-on-my-resume-and-i-m-scared-it-will-affect-my-case-what-should-i-do