Here's a really good summary of other things in the lawsuit with screencaps: https://twitter.com/mjaeckel/status/950446329603461121
If even half of that is true, then I'm really grateful that this lawsuit is bringing these actions to light, this is unacceptable.
EDIT: Really unfortunate that this article got flagged. It's important and we should be able to discuss it.
I wonder if the progressive left realize that the inevitable reaction to sacrificing all reason at the altar of progress, is a rise to the right
PS. Sorry for the poor sentencing structure, not as fluid in English as I used to be
I _feel_ like that this is a pretty common practice in our industry.
At a previous employer, we had someone who was dyed in the wool Republican that was outspoken in his personal life about "the blue line" and "all lives matter". When it came to a discussion for a promotion for a senior engineering role for this individual, we had another manager who felt uncomfortable having an employee with the views this guy shared. Mind you, at work, he was pretty polite and you only got an insight into his life if you accepted his friend request or saw the bumpersticker on his car in the garage.
"alleges a new lawsuit"
This is all speculation yet the title reads as fact. I'm not saying they didn't do it but let's get a title change to what is really happening here.
> Whether expressing anti-diversity sentiments at a workplace is a protected “conservative viewpoint” or, rather, a form of bigotry that actually creates a hostile environment is at the heart of the case
Expressing anti-diversity sentiments does create a hostile environment. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to grasp.
There's also a difference between discriminating against people for their political views (which isn't a protected class anyway) and choosing to avoid adding people to your team who have expressed opinions that make the workplace hostile to other employees -- which appears to have been the intention of the managers in question.
“We look forward to defending against Mr. Damore’s lawsuit"
Is not the typical PR answer when you got sued, you spect something like:
"Here at Google we are against any kind of discrimination and we deny the alleged acusations, those do not represent our values"
That is a typical PR answer, but instead they are practicality saying "yes we do all that terrible stuff, so bring it on".
I keep hearing about all kinds of lists lately. Some seem to think these are good idea.
> IS IT FINALLY TIME TO TAKE THE 'SHITTY MEDIA MEN' LIST SERIOUSLY?
Feels a bit soviet union-esq to me. But the left seems to be rallying behind ideas like these, lets see how this turns out.
Why is this flagged? WTF?
> 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).”
It's definitely illegal to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. I'm thinking the discovery process is going to find a lot of legitimate issues, if the the lawyer bringing the suit has already found stuff like this. Maybe the lawyer was using this blacklist stuff as a way to get more information and find bigger problems.
Does anyone else see the irony in a political ideology that is against anti-discrimination provisions in law being suddenly running to the legal system when they feel discriminated against?
Is 'conservative' even a protected class? It seems like the kind of thing conservatives would argue against to be honest
Can a progressive company refuse to hire non-progressive people based on cultural unsuitability? Religious organisations seem to think it's ok