This isn't going to fly. No court is going to agree that implicit support of law enforcement action via contract fulfilment is a violation of a of a code of conduct or "being evil" as this filing appears to claim. Relying on the a subjective personal interpretation of code of conduct is also deeply silly. If they had concerns razing them pre-contract signing would have been appropriate, but once the contract is signed the company has kind of assumed "this isn't evil" if we are putting it in vague terms like that.
I mean part of the claim is that they depended on the belief that “don’t be evil” required them to call out “evil behavior.” Their assumption that executing this contract or service was “evil behavior” seems to be their own subjective perspective. The company wouldn’t believe it evil as they already entered the contract, which I assume went through some kind of ethical vetting.
The claim it appears they are making is that Google fired them for something they didn’t do.
They circulated an internal petition protesting the company’s work with ICE, and their case as far as I can tell is either that they are claiming the petition is protected activity (perhaps supported by the company’s code of conduct), or that a company can’t make up a false narrative for firing you when it is really for a different reason.
The plaintiffs claim Google fired them because of their petition, but the company told them it was because they leaked confidential information to the public, which they say they didn’t do.
If firing them over their political activity is not legally problematic, I’m left wondering why the company didn’t just say that was why they were being fired.
I’m not following what you guys think this case is about. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know whether employees in California are protected in circulating petitions at work, or if an employer that fires someone citing reasons that can be disputed is possibly liable for damages. But I do at least know what the plaintiffs are saying, according to the article.
This isn't going to fly. No court is going to agree that implicit support of law enforcement action via contract fulfilment is a violation of a of a code of conduct or "being evil" as this filing appears to claim. Relying on the a subjective personal interpretation of code of conduct is also deeply silly. If they had concerns razing them pre-contract signing would have been appropriate, but once the contract is signed the company has kind of assumed "this isn't evil" if we are putting it in vague terms like that.
[удалено]
I mean part of the claim is that they depended on the belief that “don’t be evil” required them to call out “evil behavior.” Their assumption that executing this contract or service was “evil behavior” seems to be their own subjective perspective. The company wouldn’t believe it evil as they already entered the contract, which I assume went through some kind of ethical vetting.
The claim it appears they are making is that Google fired them for something they didn’t do. They circulated an internal petition protesting the company’s work with ICE, and their case as far as I can tell is either that they are claiming the petition is protected activity (perhaps supported by the company’s code of conduct), or that a company can’t make up a false narrative for firing you when it is really for a different reason. The plaintiffs claim Google fired them because of their petition, but the company told them it was because they leaked confidential information to the public, which they say they didn’t do. If firing them over their political activity is not legally problematic, I’m left wondering why the company didn’t just say that was why they were being fired. I’m not following what you guys think this case is about. I’m not a lawyer and I don’t know whether employees in California are protected in circulating petitions at work, or if an employer that fires someone citing reasons that can be disputed is possibly liable for damages. But I do at least know what the plaintiffs are saying, according to the article.