Ms. Simpson went with her mother and said she thought it was an opportunity to talk to Mr. DeVaul about the job. She said she brought conservative clothes suitable for a professional meeting."
*Not Andy Rubin
I personally view that as a sexual proposition, it’s a way of saying “I’m available”.
I think if you can say you have a wife, which implicitly tells your sexual preference and explicitly tells your legal family situation, then it's okay to add that you also have girlfriends or boyfriends as well.
I maintain that discussions of such nature have to clear a “need to know” bar at work. There’s a lot of discussions about my relationship I’d be perfectly willing to have with friends that I would not discuss at work.
Regardless, you absolutely should not be mentioning your relationship status in any way during an interview. Single, married, poly, whatever.
I do wear a wedding ring though.
Completely disagree. Every person I know who identifies as poly has their own definition of what that actually means, and many of them do not include "love" in their definition.
Her naivete thinking that any meaningful job interview would happen at freaking burning man such that it would include conservative clothing as a requirement.
Those aren't really conservative work clothes though, at least in the popular conception.
>What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode. Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible, said the people, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing confidentiality agreements. Mr. Rubin was notified, they said, and Mr. Page asked for his resignation.
> Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.
this is respectable of Google imho. There is no need that the whole world knows the details about this 'performance'. A bit low of the New York Times. But of course, sex sells.
(No need for personal attacks. Some friendliness would help not to split society/politics/discourse)
This appears to be original research on behalf of the journalist, with no citation. What evidence do they have to support it? They don't even claim an anonymous source "with knowledge of the contract".