> Then, shortly after the 2016 election, Gudeman expressed skepticism toward a Muslim colleague who wrote on an employee forum that he was “someone already targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim.” Gudeman then allegedly investigated his colleague’s claim and suggested that, in the filing’s words, “something interesting” about a recent trip to Pakistan could explain why he was being targeted. The filing states that Google then fired Gudeman for accusing his colleague of terrorism based on religion.
Reading the complaint.. all I can think: why is this in the workplace? Politics is a mess--just generally, no matter which side you're on... It amazes me that anyone would look at our politics and think: let's bring this dispute into our company. It's just asking for trouble.
> Gudeman also stated in response to another Google employee that “[i]f you truly think Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis[sic], or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled, thenyou are so badly out of touch it borders on delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but aresaying them anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.
Yes, well then.
If we fall into the trap of conditional probability (“this person is a member of such-and-such-category, therefore this-is-frivolous-because-he-doesn't-need ...) we are committing precisely the kind of prejudiced stereotyping that diversity is supposed to avoid. It's quite telling that conditional probability is one of the hallmarks of rational thought.
Let's let them have their minutes in court, if a court considers their complaint to have merit. That's the whole point, isn't it? No point tossing out two cents’ worth around and about.
Look at this guys performance review information in the lawsuit and judge for yourself if you think he was only let go because of his comments.
Damore has a much stronger case without this guy.
I am not a lawyer but the only advice I have heard from lawyers consistently is, "don't take about the case." Is there anything he has to gain from speaking publicly about his lawsuit?
Is this flagged for an obvious reason or is it that the topic is distasteful to some in the community?
Reading through the actual complaint, as much as I despise many aspects of the Damore memo, there is a lot of substance (in the complaint itself).
One example is the quote: “If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with fuck-all as a result!”
HR defended this speech, but when substituting in any other class of individuals it would have been violating... It's hard to empathize with the conservative white males that filed the complaint but the substance of the complaint does hold some weight.
Go for it.
I hope he succeeds.