Skip to main content

NLRB Counsel Concludes Google Did Not Violate the NLRA in Termination of Employee


Late last week, an Associate General Counsel for the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") concluded that Google did not violate federal labor law when it terminated an employee after he circulated an internal memorandum that suggested women were not as biologically suited for coding jobs as men.

The employee, James Damore ("Damore"), worked at Google and was terminated shortly after he circulated the internal memorandum that both criticized his employer and also made statements about women in the workplace.  Following his termination, Damore filed a complaint with the NLRB and argued that Google violated Section 8(a)(1) of the National Labor Relations Act ("NLRA") on the grounds that he was unlawfully terminated for engaging in protected activity.  However, the Associate General Counsel disagreed and held that although Damore's memorandum contained protected statements (in regard to his criticism of Google), he was ultimately terminated for statements that were unprotected by the NLRA.  Namely, Damore's comments about women in his memorandum were found to be "discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort[s] to cloak comments with 'scientific' references and analysis, and notwithstanding 'not all women' disclaimers.  Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace."  Ultimately, the Associate General Counsel recommends dismissing Damore's complaint had it not been withdrawn.

However, last month, Damore chose to drop his NLRB complaint and instead has filed a class action that he and another former Google employee have brought against the company on the grounds that Google discriminates against white, male, and conservative employees.


For a copy of the Associate General Counsel's Memorandum:  https://apps.nlrb.gov/link/document.aspx/09031d45826e6391


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more