[thehardsphere]

The lawsuit contains screenshots and other evidence that serves as an effective prima facie case for workplace discrimination. It's not really correct to say it's "speculation", which kind of implies someone just made a bunch of stuff up or is guessing as to what behavior takes place inside Google. On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial.

That said, Google should have an opportunity to counter the claims if they have a defense and evidence to support it.

[forapurpose]

> On it's own, if not rebutted, it would be enough to win at trial.

Is that based on some experience in HR, employment lawsuits, or the law?

[thehardsphere]

Well, the law is that it's illegal to not hire someone based on their race. The lawsuit contains screenshots of people saying they don't want to hire people who are white.

So, if there's no rebuttal (e.g. Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say "this is a fake screenshot" or "it's taken out of context" or "the hiring practice is not illegal for this reason" or "this person has no say over what the hiring practice is" or whatever), those screenshots would be the only evidence at trial. Uncontested, they depict a company that doesn’t want to hire white people because they are white. Google has to provide evidence to the contrary in their response.

That's how any court proceeding works. All I'm saying about the lawsuit is that it's not on-its-face without merit. That doesn't mean Damore is right, it just means Google has to offer a defense since the plantiff has at least shown that there is a reason to believe the claims might be true and demonstrate illegal behavior on Google's part.

[forapurpose]

> Google's lawyer doesn't come back and say ...

Google's lawyer tries the case in court, not on Twitter. The lack of debate doesn't signify anything.

[thehardsphere]

I didn't say there was a lack of debate, and never mentioned Twitter. I said, if they didn't respond in court, they would lose in court.