Fired Employees Sue Google For Breaching 'Don't Be Evil' Part of Contract (vice.com) 120
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Three former Google employees who were fired by the company in 2019 sued Google on Monday, claiming that the company violated the part of its code of conduct that says "Don't Be Evil." "Don't Be Evil" was, famously, Google's motto for years. The company moved away from the motto after renaming itself Alphabet in 2015, but "Don't Be Evil" is still part of the company's official employee code of conduct: "Remember don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right -- speak up!," the final line of Google's code of conduct states. Employees are expected to sign the contract as a condition of their employment at Google.
The new lawsuit, which alleges a breach of contract by Google, comes as part of drawn out legal proceedings between Google and three former employees who were fired within minutes of each other on November 25, 2019. Google claimed to fire the workers for leaking "confidential" information to the press, and because they engaged in "systematic searches" for information "outside the scope of their job." But the software engineers say they were fired for protesting Google's decision to sell cloud computing software to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which at the time was caging migrants and separating parents from children. They circulated a company-wide petition requesting Google affirm that it would not collaborate with CBP or ICE. The three workers, Rebecca Rivers, Paul Duke, and Sophie Waldman, are now suing Google for allegedly violating its own code of conduct as well as California public policy. California sued Trump in 2019 over the indefinite detention of migrant children. "The new complaint alleges that all three of the fired employees saw Google's collaboration with CBP under the Trump administration as 'evil' and had followed Google's mandate to call out unethical conduct by protesting the company's actions," the report adds. "It claims that Google never informed the fired employees that they had in any way violated the company's 'data security policy,' and that none of the employees had engaged in 'systematic searches.' They had only accessed documents that any full-time Google employee could have found on their own, court documents say."
The new lawsuit, which alleges a breach of contract by Google, comes as part of drawn out legal proceedings between Google and three former employees who were fired within minutes of each other on November 25, 2019. Google claimed to fire the workers for leaking "confidential" information to the press, and because they engaged in "systematic searches" for information "outside the scope of their job." But the software engineers say they were fired for protesting Google's decision to sell cloud computing software to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which at the time was caging migrants and separating parents from children. They circulated a company-wide petition requesting Google affirm that it would not collaborate with CBP or ICE. The three workers, Rebecca Rivers, Paul Duke, and Sophie Waldman, are now suing Google for allegedly violating its own code of conduct as well as California public policy. California sued Trump in 2019 over the indefinite detention of migrant children. "The new complaint alleges that all three of the fired employees saw Google's collaboration with CBP under the Trump administration as 'evil' and had followed Google's mandate to call out unethical conduct by protesting the company's actions," the report adds. "It claims that Google never informed the fired employees that they had in any way violated the company's 'data security policy,' and that none of the employees had engaged in 'systematic searches.' They had only accessed documents that any full-time Google employee could have found on their own, court documents say."
I don't get it (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if "caging migrants and separating parents from children" is evil, "selling cloud computing software to CBP" is not.
Cloud computing software doesn't put anyone in a cage. (Not literally, anyway)
Getting them to buy their software elsewhere isn't going to affect their policies and procedures.
You're in business; you sell to customers. You don't discriminate. Basically just like selling wedding cakes.
Re: (Score:3)
This is an open and shut case that will end with the former employees paying various lawyers lots of money.
Re:I don't get it (Score:5, Interesting)
This is an open and shut case that will end with the former employees paying various lawyers lots of money.
I'd say the opposite because of the details.
While it might look like an employment law case, it really isn't. It's a contract case.
In addition to general employment law, Google created additional contracts between the company and the workers. Those contracts legally obligated the the workers to speak out. They have a fairly strong case that because of that contract they were legally bound to speak up, escalate their concerns, and do exactly what they did.
If the contract wasn't in place you are likely right, the company could dump the workers for speaking against the company's actions. However, because Google required those contracts as terms of employment, Google created the obligation that they speak up, created the forum for them to speak up, and required participation from all employees in the discussion. By doing that, Google effectively fired them for doing their contractually-required job.
This will be a quick settlement by the company. It will probably be followed by new contracts that will need to be signed by every employee that expressly terminate the old agreements (if they haven't already done that since).
Re: (Score:1)
They have a fairly strong case that because of that contract they were legally bound to speak up, escalate their concerns, and do exactly what they did.
That assumes they can successfully argue that being contractually bound to bring concerns to the company, and bringing those concerns to the press, are one and the same.
Google created the obligation that they speak up, created the forum for them to speak up, and required participation from all employees in the discussion.
It will be exactly these details at point.
Did they report their concerns to the forum created by google?
We can assume yes.
Was the reason stated for being fired because they reported their concerns to the forum created by google?
No, google didn't state that.
Is the press the forum created by google?
If google created the press and the employees
Re: (Score:2)
This will be a quick settlement by the company.
Doubt it. You're assuming that the workers are telling the complete truth and the company is lying. It's a he said she said summary and you've already passed judgement. If Google thinks it can legitimately prove its version of the story this won't be settled, and the employees who were fired will like the GP said part with lawyer fees.
That said it is likely that new contracts would be issued regardless to stop employees doing this in the future.
But don't pass judgement. An evil corporation is no more or les
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to general employment law, Google created additional contracts between the company and the workers. Those contracts legally obligated the the workers to speak out. They have a fairly strong case that because of that contract they were legally bound to speak up, escalate their concerns, and do exactly what they did.
I agree. But only to speak up. Going about making a petition to go against company policy is probably not covered by this. Even more so, probably in company time, probably with company resources, no that will make you vulnerable to sanctions.
Basically this part of the code of conduct would result in something like this:
Employee: Hey boss, I think you should not do that.
Employer: Noted. This is company policy, we will do this.
Employee: Hey boss, I really think you should not do that.
Employer: Heard you
Re: (Score:2)
The company created the internal forum expressly for people to speak up. The company created the ability to have those internal petitions. The company also required the contracts telling people to speak up and bring up issues in the forums at every level of the company.
That last one you mentioned doesn't need to apply, although that's what they attempted to do. The original Google (and good management) understand that people can complain about problems, discuss problems, even petition for change against p
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In addition to general employment law, Google created additional contracts between the company and the workers. Those contracts legally obligated the the workers to speak out. They have a fairly strong case that because of that contract they were legally bound to speak up, escalate their concerns, and do exactly what they did.
Speaking up is one thing, that doesn't mean the company has to take action on it.
However, because Google required those contracts as terms of employment, Google created the obligation that they speak up, created the forum for them to speak up, and required participation from all employees in the discussion. By doing that, Google effectively fired them for doing their contractually-required job.
Did they? It seems as though these employees went a lot further than just "speaking up". If they were told "thankyou for speaking up but or position is that this is not 'evil'" then that's the end of it, if they then decide to organize petitions and leak information to the press that's going far further than anything in the contract.
There's the old "if you see something, say something" in airports, if you see an unattended bag
Re: (Score:2)
"This is an open and shut case that will end with the former employees paying various lawyers lots of money."
That's ok, they made a lot of money
Re: (Score:2)
This is an open and shut case
Says you. On the face of it, the question is not whether Google did evil by doing business with evil CBP but whether they lied about the true reason for the firing. It seems to me the latter is looking pretty good.
Re: I don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
It is well within Googles right to discriminate.
Rights aren't really relevant here.
You don't see restaurants that deny service to people for voting for the evil candidate.
When you buy towels, no one asks if they're going to be used for waterboarding.
That's not the way business works. A buyer buys from a seller.
A grocery store isn't evil because a serial killer can buy grapes there.
Re: I don't get it (Score:3)
Re: I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
But that's all a moot point since Google isn't selling coal to anybody. The larger point is that life is nuanced, it's almost never a matter of "good vs. evil."
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm not. Australian coal mining is devastating to the local ecosystem and has huge impacts on their local environment. The fact that China sets it on fire causing CO2 emissions is neither here nor there. China can get its own share of critique, there's plenty to go around.
I also don't criticise oil companies for people driving cars. I do criticise their lobbying against car electrification and when they breach their own EPA mandates on fugitive emissions and flaring. But then if they are within their EPA
Re: (Score:2)
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Oh really now?
Try wearing a MAGA hat in a Portland, Seattle, or Frisco restaurant these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Are there any still open? Between COVID and the looting, I doubt I would like to try my luck getting a good meal.
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge is the key. In your examples, they had no reason to believe that the person they were doing business with was a person doing evil. It would be a bit different if the person was famous for doing a thing that the vast majority of society considered evil.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
President George W. Bush began the trend of a "zero tolerance" approach in 2005 with Operation Streamline, under which a significant number of criminal prosecutions for illegal entry (a misdemeanor) were pursued; however, but during his administration, exceptions were generally made for adults traveling with minors.
In 2015 Obama introduced the Family Case Management Program which, according to the fact sheet about the program, specifically prioritized "families with certain vulnerabilities, including pregnant or nursing family member; those with very young children; family members with medical/mental health concerns; families who speak only indigenous languages; and other special needs" to offer an alternative to being held in detention centers while awaiting the court to process their asylum claims, which often takes years.
In 2016, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Flores v. Lynch[39][40] that detained immigrant children should be released as quickly as possible, but that parents were not required to be freed. The Obama administration complied by releasing women and children after detaining them together for 21 days.
Two weeks after Trump was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2017, the administration reviewed the idea of separating immigrant children from their mothers as a way to deter asylum-seekers . . . Multiple media accounts, as well as direct testimony from detained migrants to members of Congress, reported that immigrant families lawfully presenting themselves at ports of entry seeking asylum were also being separated . . . a report released in January 2019 revealed that while HHS had previously said that the total number of children separated from their parents was less than 3,000, a new investigation revealed that the actual number of separated children was several thousand higher, with the exact number unknown due to poor record keeping. HHS officials had noticed a "steep increase" in separated children from the summer 2017.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say that 'separating parents from children' may be wrong but it is a common legal practice throughout the United States and social workers take children from parents every day. You can have you child taken for letting them play in the back yard for an hour after school because you are running late (actual case). I dare say willingly subjecting your child to the hazards of illegal border crossing and dealing with cartel
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it weren't there are a number of reasons. Separation is required if they can't establish paternity. It is a sad human reality that people sell their children and children are kidnapped for bad actors t
Re: (Score:2)
Conspiracy Theory.
As for the real why Trump made it abundantly clear. Trump was demanding this discretionary authority be stripped from the President by congress. He pointed out they could do this any time and he was right. For the first time in history the President of the United States was using his power to get his power reduced. The political opposition refused to flinch.
Re: (Score:2)
"he deliberately, intentionally, willfully traumatized thousands of children and families"
That is your dramatization. He had the children of criminals taken by social services as happens to thousands of families every day in the United States. He simply increased the practice in one small and highly political area to highlight the practice.
This is perfectly on brand. If you know anything about his political base you know they generally do not support the idea the state has
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that almost all 500 haven't been reunited because the 'parents' refused?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What you're not getting is that their firing was retaliatory action against a protest that their employment contract actually encourages them to do.
Oh, you mean like how they encouraged people to talk openly on internal forums? (Achoo Damore achoo)
Re: (Score:2)
Since you brought it up.... (Score:3)
Selling a wedding cake is different that creating a custom wedding cake with specific artistic imagery.
If you have shelves lined with cakes and price tags, and an obviously-out homosexual walks in and asks to buy one off the shelf, you are legally obligated to sell it. You cannot say "we don't sell to homosexuals here."
However, if a potential client approaches you with a contract for you to make a wedding cake full of Nazi symbols and racist imagery, are you free to say "I won't accept this contract, becau
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Since you brought it up.... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, protect class means you cannot deny service to a person on the grounds that the person is in that class.
Protected class does NOT mean you must paint pictures about that class whenever anyone asks.
Jack didn't refuse the contract because the requestor was trans. Jack refused the contract because the contract specified making a cake that represented trans people.
To belabor this point: if an ordinary straight guy (not a member of a protected class in any way) said "bake me a cake with pictures of homosexuals, and homosexual symbology, on it" the artist can refuse. Even though homosexuality is protected, that doesn't mean some rando can force an artist to paint pictures of it (even on a cake).
So, if the person making that very same request IS a homosexual, the request can still be refused....not because the person asking for it is gay, but because the content of the artistic work offends the artist.
If this same homosexual asks to buy something pre-made...no contract is involved and there is no new art being created that speaks any messages....so Jack could not (and would not) refuse service in that case.
But as soon as he was told to create a work of art with specific symbolic meaning that violated his conscience, he was within his rights to refuse (regardless of any detail about the person requesting it).
At least, in a just world this would be true. We will see what the court decides.
Re: (Score:3)
To put it as simply as possible, and artist should be free to say something like "I will paint pictures for black people, but I will not paint pictures of black people."
The reason he might refuse is not "you are black," as that would be illegal. The reason he might refuse is "this picture would be a picture of Black people, so I won't paint it." And he would make that refusal regardless of the skin color of the person requesting it.
And that should be legal. No one should be able to force an artist to cre
Re: (Score:1)
> you can plausibly allege they're, at a minimum, racist.
You can allege anyone is a racist. The left has been doing it for years.
In fact, they can claim you're a racist because someone of the same skin color did something bad hundreds of years ago. I'm pretty sure that makes them the racist, but... that's their logic.
Re: (Score:2)
Nazis are not a protected class, but free speech is protected.
People on the left, correctly, brought about these things:
1. Neo Nazis have a right to march in their own parades. This was one of the decisions that brought about the epithet "Card-carrying member of the ACLU."
2. Artistic expression is protected by the First Amendment.
That's how you arrive at conclusions religious folk need not create artistic works like custom cake decorations for gay couples. Hoisted by one's own petard.
Or is freedom of expr
Re: (Score:2)
Jack is back in court because of the latter
No lets be honest, Jack is back in court because he is a public figure and some malicious people specifically sought him out and demanded he do something they absolutely knew he would find to be against his conscience, and that they knew they could use to make trouble for him and perhaps further their cause.
Jack is not the Westboro Baptist Church. He isn't running around harassing people even if he finds their life style morally objectionable. He is leaving them alone and only really asking to be left alone
Re: (Score:2)
That is a matter of opinion. It's an opinion I do not share, and the fired employees also do not share.
For most other suppliers, probably not. For Google? If the biggest companies in the world would take a stand and say "no, enough is enough, we want nothing to do with this", CBP would be fac
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't mention legal protections for gay wedding cakes; I just said that when you're in business you sell to everybody. Laws are beside the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's me use another example to enlighten you about how USA works:
Premise: "If Government thinks a company does something illegal, working with such company is illegal".
So...
You can't work with any North Korean companies because North Korea is "evil". ...
You can't sell any software to Huawei because Huawei is "evil".
You can't sell software to ICE/CBP because they are EVIL (without quotation, meaning they ARE actively committing CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY).
Clear enough for you now?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it is. Knowingly facilitating evil is evil. The employees acted on the employee code of conduct in good faith and were fired for doing so.
If you don't believe that, just imagine how many ways you will be investigated if you knowingly sell explosives to someone who sends out mail bombs.
Re: (Score:2)
If I don't like the look of you, I don't sell my wedding cake to you. That's my prerogative.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone is shooting up a school and you step in to sell them more ammunition, that's evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy seems to imply that cloud computing software is used for "caging migrants and separating parents from children".
This is the absolute disconnect no one is addressing.
How is Google's software like ammunition?
How would directing the CBP to a different vendor affect the "evil" behavior?
Re: I don't get it (Score:2)
Maybe a better analogy is that you're selling the shooter camo pants while they shoot up the school.
Re: (Score:2)
Enabling evil people and organizations makes you complicit and evil yourself. Takes some actual understanding of ethics to see that, but the "vendors" excuse "I was just selling them something, I have no insight into what they do with it" does not work.
Re: (Score:2)
As a point of order, they were separated because kids were not responsible for their condition, and hence it was illegal to put them in jail with their parents.
Now what to do?
For decades, centuries there was no issue, until one party decided it was a voter growth industry. Did you know both parties happily inhaled migrants to shore up social security, putting off difficult decisions a few more decades?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, the parents were not yet found guilty and the agency managed to lose track of where the kids were and who their parents were (effectively making it impossible to get them back together). It also wasn't keeping the children in a suitable environment with appropriate care. The trump administration made it quite clear that the measures were punitive in nature.
Don't Be Stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
In your antisocial dreams.
"The Greatest Trick..." (Score:2)
Fun (Score:5, Funny)
So the courts will now have to enter into the debate of "what is evil". We will then end up with statements like "engaged in practices known to the state of California to be evil", but encouraged in Texas.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect it won't hinge on the definition of evil, but rather on the part about speaking up if you see something.
They will argue that they were encouraged to investigate and speak up about anything they considered evil, and that Google firing them for doing what their contract encouraged is a breech of that contract.
I still doubt they will get very far, but they might not have to. Google may settle to avoid going through the embarrassment of discovery and public arguments, and to avoid the cost to them that
Re: (Score:2)
Will it be like the health and safety laws from a few years ago, where every few months we'll get a new 'terms and services' email telling us that some legal boffin has changed "... so non-evil as is reasonably practicable" to "... as not evil as is reasonably achievable"?
Re: (Score:2)
It'll be tossed. Even if you view that as a contract "don't be evil" is so vague as to be unenforceable.
Google might regret this in the handbook (Score:5, Informative)
The "Don't be evil" part is irrelevant, but if Google actually wrote: "if you see something that you think isn't right -- speak up!" then the employees may have a point. They seem to be following the handbook's advice to the letter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the allegation. Now Google gets to prove the "published it" part, because raising it internally was expressly allowed by the code of conduct.
There are a lot of assumptions baked into that including that these three are each responsible for leaking internal info.
Re: (Score:2)
Google has no obligation to agree with any employee on any matter, so even if they did speak up, Google is not beholden to do anything about it.
The case seems to hinge on Google being held to a certain contractual basis, when its fairly obvious that no such basis exists here - the employee can think Googles actions "isn't right" but Google doesn't have to agree or act.
Re: (Score:1)
> the employee can think Googles actions "isn't right" but Google doesn't have to agree or act.
They did act in a way that put the employees in a catch-22 (breach employment agreement or also be in breach).
That's the claim that is to be examined in court, as a civil case. You're not interested in the language at hand, so you're dismissing it as facile.
Why bother?
Re: (Score:3)
"if you see something that you think isn't right -- speak up!" then the employees may have a point. They seem to be following the handbook's advice to the letter.
Not only that, but it was a signed contract.
Re: (Score:2)
The "Don't be evil" part is irrelevant
Only a lawyer would stand there and say, " 'Don't be evil!' is meaningless puffery."
Re: (Score:2)
then the employees may have a point. They seem to be following the handbook's advice to the letter.
You're assuming the employees are telling the truth. Google may be an evil corporation but that doesn't make them less trustworthy than a former disgruntled employee with an axe to grind.
Contracts aside this case will live and die first and foremost on why they were fired. Only after that is found in favour of the employees will the topic of the contract even come up.
I hope they win (Score:4, Insightful)
I really do hope they win, but I doubt they will sadly. I've had multiple instances where the company is very clearly not following the law, never mind its own written policies, and generally speaking no one really gives a shit who has the authority to do anything about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The general rule is you are under no obligation to fund your detractors, and when employees go public and say, "I work for soandso and we are doing something wrong!" you become a quasi mouthpiece taking it on yourself to speak using that paid position as leverage.
Unless...the company has boilerplate this might be a good thing to do.
I don't say they have a case, but it is not inconcevable.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt they'll win in court. But Google probably doesn't want to go to court because it would be bad PR and expose other ethically dubious policies of those. So they are likely to get a favorable settlement rather than go to court. This is routine in such cases.
The code of conduct (Score:5, Insightful)
For-profit companies are not good. They are not evil either. They are a-moral constructs whose sole purpose is the generation of profits and returns on investment. They have no social responsibility beyond what is required by law. Anything else is pure window dressing with the staying power of toilet paper. Do not buy ANY of the drivel coming out of the current crop of CEOs about how they care about you, the environment, their carbon emissions, or anything else other than profit and their customers base. If they are warm and fuzzy, its because its part of their marketing strategy.
Yes, Im getting old and cynical. Now get off my lawn.
Re: The code of conduct (Score:2)
And some would say that if breaking the law has a high enough chance of being profitable, then the company should break the law.
There are good people inside companies, and they often try to steer the companies in the good direction, but as soon as the company size become moderately large, their influence become negligible.
The local mom and pop shop or your self employed plumber can deserve your trust, anything bigger should be seen as a rabid dog that is only waiting for you to lower your guard to jump on y
The only thing that matters... (Score:2)
Is California a Right to Work state?
If yes, this is a pointless lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it is not.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law... [legalmatch.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Pardon me. CA is not a Right to Work state, but it is an At Will state.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, right to work = unions cannot stop employers from hiring you.
"At will" means you can be fired for any reason, or no reason, that does not violate laws like discrimination.
Lol (Score:2)
so we're finally litigating "Don't be Evil"? (Score:1)
Can't wait to see how that plays out.
I expect that some portion of the population is unhappy with the result, and another portion is happy with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Lawyers stood there and claimed no reasonable consumer would think a product called "Vitamin Water" was actually healthy for you. So long, "Don't be evil!" Nice knowin' ya.
Last I checked... (Score:2)
Code of Conduct only applies to employees, not employers. Google, as an organization, did not sign this Code of Conduct.
Re: (Score:2)
They've got a lot to learn! (Score:2)
In what alternate reality do the courts uphold cases where terminated employees are accusing them of not living up to some of their "company principles"? Those things exist at pretty much every company larger than the size of a "mom and pop" shop (and some of them even have a slogan or two).
They're usually just thought up by owners or upper management as some nice-sounding goals that customers and employees feel good about being able to say the company strives for. There's no legal requirement to adhere to
They want to eat the cake and have it (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That applies to protests against the state (civil). An employer is not a government, and it's perfectly acceptable to avoid the consequences of another private entity infringing on what you believe to be your lawful rights.
Civil disobedience is when you knowingly commit an illegal act in protest of injustice. If the plaintiffs are correct, they did nothing illegal and they deserve no consequences for their actions.
Re: (Score:2)
When you speak of a private entity infringing on one's lawful rights, do you believe that you have a lawful right to misuse for your own private interests the tools and privileges that your
Re: (Score:2)
Gandhi, and MLK after him, relied on the inherent belief by the population that they were good people. Hence passive resistance would expose government as thugs, and the people, thinking themselves good and kind, would be repulsed by this and demand changes. It is very effective but takes some time.
Ambiguous contracts (Score:3, Informative)
On the face of it, the agreement the employees signed is an "ambiguous contract".
I'm sure Google will argue it's not a contract, but if it's a condition of employment, and employees were obligated it sign it, a court may very well find it is one. And contracts are always two-way: the company isn't obligated to *also* follow the code of conduct, but if the code obligates the employee to take actions, Google is obligated to facilitate that. If, for example, an employment contract obligated an empoyee to work at the office on Acacia Avenue, and the company refused to allow the employee to enter that office, the company would have breached the contract.
Documents written in plain English can, are, and often should be contracts. Much ink is spent debating what common English words mean, but courts very seldom stray far from what the dictionary says they mean (because the law is supposed to be applicable to, and so understandable by, everyone - and becase legislation itself is drafted in a fairly plain mode of English). Courts interpret, they don't invent. Well written contracts are clear and precise and explicit - but works that are none of those things don't automatically become legally meaningless.
So yes, a court very well may be asked to discuss what "don't be evil" and "speak up" really mean. Foolish as that may seem. If the document doesn't define either (sounds like it doesn't) then parties have to interpret it (and the court to consider if those interpretations are reasonable). And it's a general principle, in the interpretation of ambiguous contracts [legalmatch.com] that "in most jurisdictions, ambiguous contracts are said to be resolved 'against' the party that drafted the contract. The party that did not write the contract will sometimes receive the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguities."
Google drafted the contract, added binding elements about "evil" and "speaking up", and if the court feels the employee's interpretation of that is reasonable (even if Google's interpretation is *also* reasonable) then the court can find Google broke the contract. The judge might very well be annoyed at being asked to adjudicate such a matter, but as the drafter, Google is the one the judge will be annoyed at. Don't annoy judges.
Google's lawyers can try to argue that the company didn't really mean it - that "don't be evil" is a meaningless slogan, that no-one could reasonably act on. Or maybe, in discovery, they'll find some email from a Google exec to another saying something to that effect. If it's in a legal document, that employees are obligated to sign, a court can find Google acted in bad faith [law.com] ("entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it") which would be a catastrophe for Google.
This lawsuit is a massive reach, and it's hugely unlikely to come to trial, but it's not meritless or frivolous. My prediction: Google will try very hard to have the case dismissed on a range of technical and jurisdictional matters. If that fails, and proceedings start (which would entail discovery) they'll settle. No-one is actually going to court to litigate what "evil" is. They're all lawyers - they don't have a clue :)
Re: (Score:1)
People have noted that California is an "at will" jurisdiction. It is. But that doesn't give an employer complete carte blanche to terminate. In this case, California Labor Code 1102.5 [ca.gov] may apply - in particular
(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.
T
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting idea. But were they fired for refusing to help that sale, or because they were complaining about it?
Re: (Score:2)
Also that stretches beyond the state telling local governments what to do (something they have a beef with in other contexts, like saying no city shall create local wifi) into telling private citizens and corporations to not help the federal government. That is still open and far from a slam dunk.
Useful Idiots (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
In political jargon, a useful idiot is a derogatory term for a person perceived as propagandizing for a cause without fully comprehending the cause's goals, and who is cynically used by the cause's leaders.[1][2] The term was originally used during the Cold War to describe non-communists regarded as susceptible to communist propaganda and manipulation.[1] The term has often been attributed to Vladimir Lenin, but this attribution is unsubstantiated.
Re: (Score:2)
Aka True Believers, folks rallying behind you for blabberific reasons, to justify your seizure of power so you can be first among equals in all your sweet new palaces.
I get to tell you where, how, or if you can work, and all I have to do is wear a blue worker's uniform? This makes you happy?
Deal of the century!
"Could have found on their own" (Score:1)
"They had only accessed documents that any full-time Google employee could have found on their own."
That's a horseshit defense if I ever saw one. Diving into available records in search of material damaging to the company is absolutely cause for termination. What makes you think the company should pay you to do that?
Re: (Score:2)
Diving into available records in search of material damaging to the company is absolutely cause for termination.
part of the signed contract:
"Remember don't be evil, and if you see something that you think isn't right -- speak up!,"
What you are saying is that looking to confirm whether something isn't right is grounds for termination. As is not speaking up when you see something that isn't right.
And by making the argument that the employees searched for information "outside the scope of their job," Google makes an excellent case for shutting down company culture entirely. Slack channels? Cafeteria menus? Continuing education? All "outside the scope of their jobs". "20% of employee time to side project
ugh (Score:3)
which at the time was caging migrants
Anytime you confine a lawbreaker, you are "caging" them. Except you don't call it that, because that's stupid.
and separating parents from children
Yes, when we confine people, we generally don't confine their children with them. That also is routine, expected, and fine.
Oh, don't want that to happen? Then don't enter another country illegally. Simple.
Breaching 'Don't Be Evil' Part of Contract (Score:2)
Ah! (Score:1)
"...which at the time was caging migrants and separating parents from children."
Don't look now, but, they're still doing it. :D