A company, Google included, will not comment on the circumstances of an employee's exit unless provoked. It is uncharacteristic for them to comment at all. If they are willing to go public with any statements, that indicates to me that they feel their reasons are iron-clad.
Or they think that the PR win for going to the press early is worth more than the lawsuits.
Comparing this situation to your standard firing situation isn't going to add up. The calculus is different, as can be seen from the mere fact that it's being discussed here and has news articles written about it.
Unlikely I think as if they weren’t iron clad, they would muffle up and prepare for the wrongful termination lawsuit that will only be greater if they lie about the departure. Since a lie would be slander, damage reputation and lead to lots more money.
I think them issuing this statement means they feel confident in their defense. It also being so specific seems more credible since that’s something to easy to verify (emailing company info out of company).
How much is a wrongful termination going to cost them? Max a couple million?
How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO.
I can see them being just willing to take the loss on the wrongful termination if they get to smear her on the way out and think they can get her to accept a deal in the end that comes with a more stringent NDA.
> How much do they lose from the PR of gutting their AI ethics division of people who didn't toe the company line? More than a couple million easily, IMO.
Very few people really care about this issue enough to permanently change their behavior. My family was pretty upset about Gebru firing but when I visited all of their computers were still defaulting to search Google instead of Bing or duckduckgo.
A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse. Also she hasn't denied the accusation.
> A lawsuit where they lied about firing someone is much worse PR and then the truth about why they fired her would get out and it would be much worse.
We already know they lied about firing Gebru.
> Also she hasn't denied the accusation.
The fact that she's not blasting the press yet isn't a point against her.
Did google lie about a verifiable fact in the Gebru firing? I would doubt that. If you could find something like that I would seriously reconsider how I viewed Google's statements.
But right now what we have is
Google: we fired her for exfiltrating data
Source close to meg as reported by newspaper: she wrote a script to exfiltrate data related Gebru
Meg: no comment
And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data?
2. Google said "okay, we accept your resignation with immediate effect"
3. Under California law this is considered a firing, not a resignation (at least according to the discussion elsewhere in this thread).
Does this mean that Google lied when they said she resigned? I don't think so. Facts 1 and 2 are sufficient to establish that she "resigned" by anyone's typical understanding of the term. Fact #3 strikes me as little more than a legal technicality. She might not have "resigned" from a legal pov but we don't have to restrict our understanding of that word to the precise semantics of California employment law - just like it might be truthful to say that someone (OJ?) is "guilty" of a crime even if a California court deemed them to be "not guilty".
> Did google lie about a verifiable fact in the Gebru firing? I would doubt that. If you could find something like that I would seriously reconsider how I viewed Google's statements.
They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation.
> ... And your conclusion from this is Google is lying and she didn't exfiltrate data?
No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing). The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers.
> They literally denied firing her to begin with, stating that they had instead had simply accepted her resignation.
Gebru sent a conditional resignation(ultimatum) letter to Google. Google rejected those conditions and accepted her resignation. Whether or not you count that as resigned or fired is a definitional issue. But legally there are many jurisdictions that consider an ultimatum letter a resignation. The general rule has been "Would a reasonable person who read this letter conclude they had the intention of quitting if their conditions were not met?". And Gebru's letter really made it seem like she has every intention of quitting if her conditions were not met.
So this is definitely not lying in an easily verifiable way.
> No I'm saying there's probably more information that we're missing that completely changes the circumstances (as was the case if you only looked at Google's statements on Gebru's firing).
This is probably true, I'm not saying we know the whole story. I'm arguing that it is highly probably(>90%) she exfiltrated data from Google.
> The word on the street is that she saw a wrongful termination coming and made backups of emails to discuss with her lawyers.
This might be entirely possible, but this also gave them reason to terminate her so it seems like a very bad move.
> In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit.
This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions.
> Unless she was working under the assumption that they already were going to fire her.
It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.
Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date. Google fired her immediately.
> In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...
> > In other cases, a claimant may give notice of resignation which is contingent upon factors within the employer's control, such as hiring a replacement. The employer does not become the moving party by securing a replacement. The separation is still a voluntary quit.
> This sentence makes it seem like California is one of those jurisdictions.
She didn't provide a legal notice of resignation for California law, because she didn't specify an end date to her employment. Therefore the sentence you've cited doesn't apply. That's more to cover "I said I was quitting on the 17th if you as the company don't hire this person", and trying to claim that the otherwise voluntary quit was a termination because the company "had a choice".
> It really seems like if your planning on suing your employer for wrongful termination, giving them a good reason to terminate you is a bad idea. You could always get those emails later via subpoena.
Maybe, maybe not. I've seen wrongful termination cases play out in favor of the employee only because they made copies of the relevant emails. A company that's already committing illegal acts terminating someone doesn't always comply with the discovery process the way they should.
I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word.
Did Google use the word resigned in a reasonable way?
1. Gebru submitted a conditional resignation, and demonstrated she wanted to leave the job
2. California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay)
3. Gebru did not withdraw her resignation
4. Gebru no longer wished to work at Google
5. Gebru(as a manager) advised co-workers to stop work
6. Google "accepted" her resignation.
I don't think Gebru is a liar either. I think that her resigning and being fired are both reasonable one word descriptions of the events. Fired implies she wanted to continue working at Google, and resigned implies Google wanted to keep her employed. But neither of those were true.
They just mutually decided they weren't a good fit. Gebru because she thinks Google is evil, and Google because they thought Gebru was being unprofessional.
California law says conditional resignations count when the conditions are met. Gebru proposed discussing a resignation date after she was back from vacation.[1] Those conditions were not met.
California law allows the employer to accelerate the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation.
Gebru advised coworkers to stop writing documents about DEI initiatives. Not to stop work.
Is it illegal to say they resigned when you fired them? It makes sense to say that they resigned when you accelerated their termination after they said they want to quit, even if you still legally treat it as a normal firing. Pretty sure Google still filed the paperwork's correctly so she got her unemployment benefits, and if they didn't then I trust their lawyers view on it much better than yours.
> I'm not trying to prove she "voluntarily quit" vs was "discharged" via California law. I'm arguing that Google used resigned in a way that wasn't a lie, and referencing California law to show how it uses the word resignation, and is therefore a reasonable use of the word.
You can't first claim that you're not using California law in your argument, then immediately cliam that your arguement is based in California law.
Particularly when I explained how your undertanding of California law is mistaken, and doubly so when the crux of your misunderstanding is what a resignation consists of.
> ... California law says that conditional resignations count as resignations, as well as accelerating resignations(depending on pay) ...
_If_ it was a resignation in the first place, which requires the employee to set the end date. That is not this situation.
The point is for someone to be lying their use of the word has to be inconsistent with how any reasonable person could use the word. My argument is that if you use the word in the way California law uses it your not lying. But also if you don't use it in the way California law uses it but the way U.S. law uses your not lying. Or if you use it in a manner that's inconsistent with California law and U.S. law but is how people use the word in everyday language your not lying.
"Did Gebru voluntarily quit according to California law?"
"Is it obviously lying to say resigned?"
These are two separate questions.
Also I'm not convinced that it says anywhere in the California statutes that a letter of resignation requires an end date to be considered a letter of resignation. (It might say that about voluntary quitting, it might say that in case law, but I don't think it says clearly in any statute that to be considered a letter of resignation it requires an end date (which is different from whether or not it was a voluntary quit)
> But also if you don't use it in the way California law uses it but the way U.S. law uses your not lying.
You've given no citations that "US law" is somehow different than California law here. I've stuck to the specific citations directly applicable to their situation, but the idea that if the employer is the one who specifies the end date of employment, it's a firing not a resignation is pretty universal across the western world.
And yes, using "everyday language" to make public statements about a legal situation that if you used the legal definition you'd be making the opposite statement is very much a lie.
Additionally, even the "everyday language" argument has you making a distinction between "voluntary quit" and "voluntarily leave a job or other position". The crux is that if the employer specifies the end date, it's not voluntary on the part of the employee. Both under legal definitions and common parlance.
> > In P-B-39, the claimant gave notice on October 24 that she was quitting effective November 15. The employer permitted her to work only until October 31. The Board held that the claimant was discharged...
Next line
> On the other hand, if the employer continues paying the claimant's wages through the announced leaving date, the separation remains a voluntary quit
To get back to basics, the definition of resign is
"voluntarily leave a job or other position."
It doesn't mentioning leaving at the exact date and time you choose.
She didn't want to work @ Google anymore, and she told them she didn't and she'd find a good time to leave with her boss. Google responded with "now is the best time to leave".
It isn't voluntary if the date and time is chosen for you. California allows the employer to choose the last day of work. Not the effective date of resignation.
"An involuntary leaving of work occurs when the employer is the moving party in causing the unemployment of an employee at a time when the employee is able and willing to continue working."[1]
Gebru said she would respond after she was back from vacation.[2] So she was willing to continue working that long at least.
The legal definition doesn't matter. She resigned. Google almost surely reported it as a firing so she got her unemployment etc, but in practice they just accelerated her resignation.
Easy to understand example: You say you will quit in 2 weeks. The company fires you on the spot. If people ask the company what happens do you think it is more accurate for them to say you were fired? Would you prefer a company to say you were fired if that happened to you and you used them as a reference?
Pretty sure almost everyone would see that as you quitting and not you being fired. Legally you were fired but in practice you quit.
The factual definition is the same as the legal definition.
I would say they fired me after I gave notice. Saying I resigned would be inaccurate. What I would want them to say doesn't matter. Gebru wanted them to say they fired her. And she didn't give notice.
I would say I resigned before they could fire me if it was the other way around. Or resigned under duress if that's what happened. I know people who did. None of them said they were fired.
Jumping from a legal definition to the Oxford English Dictionary's definition doesn't look great for your argument.
"Well sure, but if we use another definition about this legal situation that has no basis in the applicable law then Google wasn't lying" doesn't really hold a lot of water.
To be a resignation she needed to set the final date of employment. She did not, so it was not a resignation. Google knows this fact very well and therefore lied to the press about the circumstances.
You even use the phrase "Gebru firing" in your first post in this particular thread.
I'm sorry if it was confusing.
But I was not using the law to argue she was ineligible for unemployment. Or that legally she "voluntarily quit".(though there is at least an argument she did) Only that Google's or Jeff Dean's use of word resigned was not an easily verifiable lie.
I used the term Gebru firing because I think either description is equally accurate. It was a firing in the sense Google did not want her to work there anymore. It was also a resignation in sense she didn't want to work there anymore.
You're arguing that it's a bold faced law to describe a letter of resignation as such if there is not a specific date. You haven't shown this is true in California law much less English. And if it's true in any sense it's not a lie.
If I went to my boss and said "I don't wanna work here anywhere, I'll check my calendar to find a convenient last day". And they respond with don't bother go home you'll get your two weeks.
You're argument is if someone described that event to someone else as me resigning they'd be a big ol liar?
Or this group was a thorn in their side and thousands of employees are disgusted by their actions and they want to bury this as effectively as possibly.
They don’t need an iron clad case they have millions of dollar to throw at lawyers.
Once again, why should we give them the benefit of the doubt? Why should we ever give multi billion dollar companies the benefit of the doubt?
Why give people benefit of the doubt when they're publicly throwing people under the bus?
These people are looking for drama. They're looking for attention and their name attached as some kind of martyr.
The entitlement is insane, you can't work at Google, earn $450k salary and then start a culture war inside Google and create a massive impossible to quantify damage to the company morale and sow discord.
Accusing a fired employee in such a public way of stealing documents could be argued to be blowing up her career forever. That's maybr 20 years at let's say 600k/year, ballpark what someone her level was making there (maybe even low, sheay have been L7+). That's a chunky enough defamation suit that it shouldn't be hard to find a really solid firm to defend you on spec, and it'd be worth enough that it would be pretty crazy not to pursue.
So I guess we'll find out, when she either files this suit or does not. But if you were a lawyer at Google, would you have let this statement go out without quadruple demanding to see the proof?
