Unless the Google contract departs from boilerplate California employment contracts in ways highly disadvantageous to one of the largest, most legally savvy firms in the state, it is unlikely that Google needs a documented reason to fire anybody, so long as they aren't retaliating against them for concrete protected concerted actions in labor organization or retaliating against them for defending their rights as a protected class under federal law.

Doubtless a real lawyer will come along here and clarify, but a good shorthand is: you can be fired in virtually any state in the union for expressing political opinions.

At least one California lawyer thinks that this kind of firing over a call for a change in labor practices is illegal:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/07/it-may-be-illegal-for-google...

> First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions.

> Second... California law prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.

> Third, the engineer complained in parts of his memo about company policies that he believes violate employment discrimination laws... It is unlawful for an employer to discipline an employee for challenging conduct that the employee reasonably believed to be discriminatory, even when a court later determines the conduct was not actually prohibited by the discrimination laws.

I doubt it, but let me say that I really hope it's true that what this guy wrote qualifies as a Protected Concerted Action under the NLRA, because Silicon Valley could badly use an education in the protections of the NLRA. From what I can see from this vantage, the largest companies in the valley are utterly dependent on the compliance of their employees to function, and those employees are being bought off for table scraps.

god I hope we don't wind up with a SWE labor union because of this

In California political activities or affiliations are a protected class. Whether his document qualifies for that would be debatable I would imagine.

I don't see it getting to litigation though. I'd be shocked if Google didn't offer him a fairly hefty severance payment in return for a release of all legal claims.

EDIT: Maybe don't listen to any of my predictions m'kay.

https://twitter.com/daiwaka/status/894747912701263873

(tweet author is a NYTimes Journalist who covers Google)

Employment practices insurance in California is typically triple the rest of the country due to favorable plaintiff laws and loss experience.

Source: reviewed many regulatory actuarial filings, which are public record - mine were in Alaska but you might find the same by trawling thru https://fortress.wa.gov/oic/onlinefilingsearch/ or http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0250-insurers/0800-rate-filings/

The dude had to go - I mean, the heat he got was unworkable, to the point I wonder who'd ever want to work with him. It feels like even saying hello to him might have been social, political and career suicide.

What I'm interested in is Google's best response, i.e. he has to go, how is that deal structured? Do you offer him a crazy good settlement and an NDA? What is the risk/reward here of a lowball offer vs legal action? Is the NDA negotiable, e.g. you can do X interviews, but not on say Fox news? What is the internal risk of people finding out he was given 6 figures to walk? I'm really fascinated with the practicalities of the action after the decision was taken.

Does anyone with any sort of HR experience know what is the best practice here?

They're probably ready for the lawsuit and will settle with a few millions and will get done with it.

I used to work at Google and this makes me sad. The fact that you could make fun of Larry Page in memegen was my favorite attribute of that company.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14952333 "Why it may be illegal for Google to punish that engineer over his now viral memo (cnbc.com)"

California is an At-Will state. Unless he is a protected class, he can be fired for any reason or no reason.

So are you saying if he were a woman or minority it'd have been easier to get hired and he'd have a stronger wrongful termination suit?

Not sure what's the case at Google, but when I was managing people at a Fortune 500 company, I was guided by HR to be especially careful if I need to fire a women or a minority employee - put them on PIP, document everything very carefully, etc. - because of much higher perceived risk of a wrongful termination suit.

Since he violated the code of conduct, there's not much to base a suit off of regardless of genetics.

For basically all intents and purposes, every state the US is an at-will state, with very narrow exceptions in a few states few tech people work in.

Which makes me all the happier, personally, to work in one of those states. At Will employment is such an employee hostile asymmetrical contract.

It works both ways. You can also quit any time you want.

That's theoretically the benefit of at will. But that benefit is asymmetric - a company won't hardly notice one persons leaving, but a person's life will be unduly burdened by being fired with no warning or cause.

Usually those are vague enough to where they can axe you for nearly anything no?

I doubt he has a strong case, but several Californian lawyers would be happy to file a nuisance lawsuit anyway.