Let's just assume that uber has some google technology. If they completely fire levandowsky, then he effectively becomes a third party in the case. Given the choice, google doesn't care about him, they care about uber beating them to market with their own tech. Google could drop him from the case in exchange for aiding in an uber loss. uber has to keep him close and happy, whatever that means...
Now if Uber really hasn't done anything wrong, and they may not actually know, but if we assume they are completely innocent then he can't directly hurt them if they fire him, he might sue them or collect a golden parachute but it makes uber look better.
Yes, that is what I meant. The stealing of trade secrets (illegal) was on top of the stealing of employees (legal) which was on top of the investment (speculation). But add it all up and Google is going to make an example out of Uber.
And it's twice as impactful because it's happening simultaneously with other disastrous events and sexual harassment lawsuits. News love big names with big drama.
This is analysis from The Information, which is a pay-only publication:
"But Mr. Levandowski is still at Uber, reporting to his replacement, Eric Meyhofer. One person who knows both men said Mr. Meyhofer was considered to be Mr. Levandowski’s “shill.” So color us unimpressed by the move, which could just be smoke and mirrors."
Presumption of innocence. You have to assume that the people are innocent until they are proven guilty. If you fired Levandowski and win the case, then he sues. If you leave him in place and you're found guilty, there are extra damages because you were "notified" and you still didn't stop his work. So you move him off to the side, wait for the trial to resolve. And then figure out what to do with him, which will be either fire him or move him back on to the project.
> You have to assume that the people are innocent until they are proven guilty.
You only have to do that when you are the trier of fact (jury in a jury trial, judge in a bench trial) in a criminal prosecution.
Outside of that, the rules are different.
> If you fired Levandowski and win the case, then he sues.
And loses, because at-will employment, and being suspected, even wrongly, of civil wrongdoing creating liability for your employer is not a protected class.
If he has an employment contract as is likely as the chief executive of an acquired company, and by firing him essentially without cause (the allegations are unproven) he was owed significant compensation which was denied him presuming it was for cause. He would sue for breach of contract. But we do not know his arrangement with the company.
Yeah, I am always confused by people who seem to think you need a good reason to fire someone. In almost every state, this isn't the case; as long as you don't fire someone for one of the defined illegal reasons, you are fine. You can fire someone because you flipped a coin, or because you just felt like firing someone.
That depends on the jury (and therefore the jurisdiction) actually. There have been several times when I made this argument in favor of removing some employee who was actively working to destroy a team and was made to jump through lots of hoops by corporate lawyers fearful of lawsuits.
Well, they would have to convince a jury that they were actually fired for one of the protected reasons. Often times lawyers will want you to document the reasons you are firing someone so that you can use them as a defense against a lawsuit claiming you fired them for a protected reason.
"The situation raises questions about the future of Mr. Levandowski at the company. When Uber’s lawyer told the court that the company could not force him to testify, Judge Alsup said Uber had the right to order him to cooperate or be fired."
Isn't this a civil case, i.e., nobody is charging either Levandowski or Uber with a crime?
And isn't Uber a) not a court of law, and therefore not obligated to presume innocence, and b) an at-will employer, who can terminate Levandowski merely for making life hard for them, whether or not he was responsible?
Yes it is a civil case, and it is a valid point about the lack of a criminal complaint. My explanation is inadequate.
The burden of proof in a theft of trade secrets argument is on the plaintiff[1,2]. Google needs to prove Levandowski stole trade secrets, it does not require Uber to prove that he didn't.
I am also presuming that Uber has an employment contract with Levandowski which includes earn outs as part of the Otto acquisition. This is common practice. And if my presumption is correct, he is not an 'at will' employee, there are specific guidelines around termination and the responsibilities of each party should they decide to separate. It is entirely possible that if they were to ask him to leave, and he had yet to be proven to have stolen secrets or misreprented his ownership of the IP he brought, Uber could conceivably owe him the balance of all earn outs immediately.
[1] "Illinois law applied to the case and Illinois has passed the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. This Uniform Act is the law in 46 of the 50 states. To prevail on a trade secrets claim under the Act, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) it has information qualifying as a trade secret; (2) at least one of its trade secrets has been misappropriated; and (3) the defendant used that trade secret in their business
activity or inevitably will." --
http://www.btlaw.com/files/Uploads/Documents/Publications/A%...
> The burden of proof in a theft of trade secrets argument is on the plaintiff
Yes, but it's a "preponderance of the evidence" burden which means a literally any evidence for each of the required elements can meet it, if not countered by stronger evidence on the other side. "Proof" in law doesn't mean the same as in mathematics. (And in civil law, not even what it means in criminal law.)
He's one of the top experts in self driving technology, a motorcycle he and a team built in college is in the Smithsonian. I can see Uber wanting to keep him on unofficially.
"He and a team" - I'd be curious to see the extent of his technical contribution, given that he's billed as the team leader and seems to be taking a lot of the credit here. In my experience, 'team leaders' who end up with the credit for the finished product do so because they spent all their time self-promoting rather than actually, y'know, building the product.
While I've personally seen examples of the team leader getting credit for being a self-promoter, I'm not convinced. I've also seen groups where the team leader was the most passionate, and really was the driving force for the project.
I do not know which he is, but I'm not in a position to pass judgement.
Let's just assume that uber has some google technology. If they completely fire levandowsky, then he effectively becomes a third party in the case. Given the choice, google doesn't care about him, they care about uber beating them to market with their own tech. Google could drop him from the case in exchange for aiding in an uber loss. uber has to keep him close and happy, whatever that means...
Now if Uber really hasn't done anything wrong, and they may not actually know, but if we assume they are completely innocent then he can't directly hurt them if they fire him, he might sue them or collect a golden parachute but it makes uber look better.