[ChuckMcM]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[ChuckMcM]

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.

[cortesoft]

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.

[sverige]

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.

[cortesoft]

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.

[sverige]

Right, but that process gives the lie to "at will" employment.

[phamilton]

"I've never seen a trial I couldn't lose" - An attorney friend of mine.

[hiddencost]

Some breath-taking Dunning-Krueger effect here.

"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."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/30/technology/uber-waymo-lev...

[xapata]

On who's part?

[geofft]

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?

[ChuckMcM]

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%...

[2] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x....

[dragonwriter]

> 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.)

[ianamartin]

Umm, that's a criminal rights issue. This is a civil case. The rules are quite different.

There is no assumption of innocence here.