Hacker News Reader

Comment by jakelazaroff | Hacker News Reader

Per another Wired article [1], they organized the walkout to protest sexual harassment:

> Thousands of Google employees and contractors around the globe—many of them women—briefly walked off the job Thursday to protest Google’s handling of sexual harassment claims and other workplace issues, and to demand more transparency around harassment incidents and pay levels at the company.

The aforelinked EEOC page [2] explicitly mentions that asserting your right to not be harassed is protected activity:

> communicating with a supervisor or manager about employment discrimination, including harassment

> Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws

[1] https://www.wired.com/story/google-walkout-just-latest-sign-...

[2] https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/retaliation.cfm

View on HN

"Other acts to oppose discrimination are protected as long as the employee was acting on a reasonable belief that something in the workplace may violate EEO laws"

That's pretty vague. And nothing else on the government site supports protests. That's not any sort of normally protected activity in regards to labor laws. Plus, I think it's fairly common knowledge that if you walk out of your office to protest anything (your employer, the government, the weather, whatever), nearly everyone would say that you walking out is you not performing your job duties at that specific time. And I don't think Google or any other company has a written policy to take part in protests. The government's site seems to indicate that following the company's policies and HR practices with regards to raising the alarm bells at alleged/suspected improper activity cannot receive retaliation.

EDIT - I was wrong. It is protected. https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

I don’t know whether a walkout would or wouldn’t be a protected activity. It’s a tricky question with a lot of moving parts. I suspect you don’t know either. If that’s the case, you ought to be more careful about giving legal advice in confidant and unconditional terms where that advice, if taken, could lead to adverse consequences for readers.

If you are attorney specializing in labor law and you think the above posts comport with your ethical obligations, then carry on I guess.

Documented as protected: https://www.law.com/corpcounsel/2018/11/01/when-a-walkout-hi...

I can’t read that article, but I would be shocked if any an attorney said in print that is was definitely protected without any kind of conditions or caveats the way the ancestor post did.

You're correct, IANAL, but is merely quoting an official EEOC page tantamount to giving legal advice? GGP said "Nothing these Google employees did is even close to being on that list", and I pointed out items on the list that were. I didn't intend for it to come across as legal advice.

This is Google we're talking about - where, as shown in the Damore complaint, organized trolling groups were routinely cyber-harassing and cyber-bullying coworkers on company-provided spaces and "forums", often with the implied acquiescence of middle management, for purely political reasons. It's just harassment fest and the definition of a toxic work environment - and they got away with it. Sure, the shoe is now on the "other" foot so to say, but other than that what exactly has changed?

Breitbart is probably not the most authoritative source on Google's internal politics.

Funny that you should say that when I didn't mention Breitbart at all! I referenced the extensive evidence provided by James Damore - formerly a relatively high-profile Google employee - and privately confirmed or corroborated to Damore by other Googlers or former Googlers, not all of whom were necessarily willing to come out publicly.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com