"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.
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.
As for the pictures, the only one in the article has nothing to do with black-lists of conservatives, it reads to me like keeping a list of ah*s. In this case, specifically those who make the propagation of a company value difficult. That screenshot doesn't say anything about political affiliation or beliefs. It is focused on actions. If you think any company doesn't have an implicit or even explicit list of 'capable but frustrating employees' you are in for a shock.
Being a conservative may well be a protected class in California, but being a jerk and interfering with the entirely legal strategic goals set by management isn't. The first is about the views you hold, and should be protected. The second is about the things you do at work, and shouldn't be protected.
<h1>Famous person murders family member</h1>
<h4>court case alleges</h4>
That said, Google should have an opportunity to counter the claims if they have a defense and evidence to support it.
Is that based on some experience in HR, employment lawsuits, or the law?
So, if there's no rebuttal (e.g. Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say "this is a fake screenshot" or "it's taken out of context" or "the hiring practice is not illegal for this reason" or "this person has no say over what the hiring practice is" or whatever), those screenshots would be the only evidence at trial. Uncontested, they depict a company that doesn’t want to hire white people because they are white. Google has to provide evidence to the contrary in their response.
That's how any court proceeding works. All I'm saying about the lawsuit is that it's not on-its-face without merit. That doesn't mean Damore is right, it just means Google has to offer a defense since the plantiff has at least shown that there is a reason to believe the claims might be true and demonstrate illegal behavior on Google's part.
Google's lawyer tries the case in court, not on Twitter. The lack of debate doesn't signify anything.