[chadbennett]

Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11)

Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?

[deanCommie]

It still is - in the judicial system.

There has never been and never will be such a presumption in private enterprise. We can fix it if you want, but you won't like the amount of Government control over industry that would require.

Also, I realize "unverified accusation" is a commonly used distracting turn of phrase, but that hardly seems appropriate here:

> ...an official at X told her, per the Times, that “her account was ‘more likely than not’ true and that ‘appropriate action’ was taken.” Simpson says she was asked by officials at Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.”

Sounds like verified, and admitted by the guilty party.

[all2]

I am very curious about how people who do things like these remain employed. Is there anyone who has been on the back-end of one of these decisions? What's the motivation for keeping a predator around?

[jpm_sd]

Upper management is afraid to lose people who are supposedly valuable.

[angrow]

Sadly often it's sympathy.

[empath75]

If the predator makes them more money than it costs to pay off the victims.

[gowld]

Which victims are paid off? The cost is in lost/demoralized employees who would otherwise do valuable work, and in externalized harm to people outside the company.

[creep]

>The cost is in lost/demoralized employees who would otherwise do valuable work

No, stop, that's hardly a cost worth paying attention to for a large company. An exec is worth much more than almost anyone of lower rank.

That's the problem, though. There is no way you can appeal to a large company in terms of the cost of lost employees who are victims of assault by higher-ups. The media storm is what gets them, it's the bad publicity they fear-- in my opinion that is the only way to get anything "done" in terms of assault cases like this.

At the same time, when we rely on bad publicity to force action, we risk ruining the lives of innocent people. Men and women in powerful positions are often targeted with these sorts of accusations for the sole purpose of getting them out of the way.

I have no proposed solution but appealing in the way you have is not it. It just does not make sense.

[tomjakubowski]

I don't think you understand. It is the morale of the whole Google X rank and file, or at least, some large portion thereof, that's at risk. If my employer protected a sexually harassing executive like this, I would be quickly looking for a new job and likely be significantly less productive in the meantime. Why should I bother to work hard for a company whose leaders have those values?

That's why execs even bother to put out damage control emails like the one Astro Teller sent. Or the ones following mass layouts. They are trying to stop the morale bleeding to avoid a crisis. Maybe it will work this time, maybe it won't and they'll have to fire DeVaul.

[ashelmire]

People have forgotten that we enshrined that as a legal right because we determined it was best for society (or, more likely, never thought about it). It's not just a legal principle; it's a principle of just society. When we ignore it in the corporate world or other aspects of private life, we're saying that we think mob justice and presumption of guilt produces a better world (or a better corporation, etc).

Of course, even in our legal system, all it takes is an accusation. How many people are currently serving times for crimes they didn't commit? I'd bet the answer is disturbing high, especially when the level of certainty is supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do so many convicted of murder or other crimes later get proven innocent? If someone didn't commit a crime... you'd think there was quite a reasonable doubt.

[woah]

What’s up with all this stupid hand wringing? If a janitor didn’t clean the floor and got fired, would you be calling for a long, complicated, and expensive government mandated quasi-legal trial? Why is it that we have to extend every possible protection to a creepy dude who asks prospective employees to take off their shirts?

[JoshTriplett]

Leaving aside that the person in question here has admitted fault, so there's no question of guilt here...

I often marvel that some people seem willing to completely ignore evidence that doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction.

Any information, whether an admission of guilt, an accusation, multiple accusations, direct observation, observation of borderline or boundary-pushing behavior, or anythings else, provides some amount of evidence. Start with some prior probability of someone engaging in bad behavior (of any type, this isn't specific to harassment), in the absence of any information. Update that probability based on what evidence you have. You now have some estimated probability of someone engaging in that bad behavior.

There's a threshold ("beyond a reasonable doubt", say 99%) where you'd use it to convict someone of a crime, depriving them of personal liberty to protect others and theoretically to attempt to reform them. There's a lower threshold (50%, "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities") where you'd use in a civil case, such as a lawsuit. There's a still lower threshold used for "probable cause", enough to get a warrant to investigate. There's a still lower threshold for "reasonable suspicion".

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st... for a wide variety of legal standards other than "beyond a reasonable doubt" that the US legal system already applies, and some of the circumstances in which they apply.

So, continuing the same premise: there's a threshold (most definitely not 99%) where you'd decide not to put someone in a position of power that they seem likely to abuse. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to use a quote from someone to endorse a press release. There's a threshold where you'd refuse to employ someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone attend a conference where they might harm others or make others unwelcome. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone babysit your kids. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to date someone, or be friends with someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide to make sure you're never alone with someone.

I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?

[lliamander]

First of all, as an aside, I think a silver lining to all of these controversial accusations is that many people are becoming more educated on standards of evidence and discussing what standard to use when. I think a better understanding of these concepts is probably the best way to find common ground.

> I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?

I absolutely agree. The question is, what standard would you use? Likewise, what standard would you want used by your employer if you were accused of something?

[lucian-g]

> Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?

You're probably commenting the title (which says he was just accused) and not the article.

DeVaul admitted the events took place and apologized.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...

> In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.

[dragonwriter]

> Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11)

Only for penal offenses (same source [0].) Torts are not penal offenses, and workplace discipline that doesn't involve government action is even farther from a penal offense.

> Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that is necessary for termination?

An accusation, even unverified, is not required for termination.

“At-will employment” means pretty much what the name says. Outside of special cases (tenured and/or civil service status, special employment cobtracts) a job is a discretionary immediately revocable relationship, not a property interest secured by right.

[0] https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea...

[imh]

I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment." Isn't that exactly what termination would be? If you terminate someone for a thing, I'd say that fits the bill as punishment for the thing.

[eesmith]

The linked-to text from the UDHR starts "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defense."

If your choice of definition were correct, that would mean that any firing which is part of a punishment would have to go through the court system first. Since that isn't the case, that means your choice of definition is not correct.

The penal code is "a code of laws concerning crimes and offenses and their punishment" - https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/penal%20code . A penal offense is something which is counter to the penal code.

[dragonwriter]

> I had to look up "penal offense." The relevant definition seems to be "liable to punishment."

You seem to have looked up “penal” alone in a general-use dictionary, rather than the legal term “penal offense” in a law dictionary. Unsurprisingly, the treaty, a document of international law, uses a legal term of art in (one of) it's legal sense(s). The term generally means “an offense punishable by law”, but is more specifically construed in a couple different senses, narrowly as synonymous with criminal offenses, but sometimes more broadly incorporating also offenses which are not criminal but include an exemplary / punitive sanction as well as (and particularly not tied to) any compensatory one.

Termination of employment is not a sanction (punitive or otherwise) by law. (Well, in the case under discussion; it can be a legal sanction, e.g., under military law.)

[dawhizkid]

This is about an HR decision of a private company, not the US judicial system we're talking about.

[munchbunny]

What's your bar for "verified"?

[cagenut]

maybe read your own source? https://www.humanrights.com/course/lesson/articles-06-11/rea...

its got nothing to do with your employment. unless you're assuming a right to a job in your argument.

[Hei1Fuya]

As long as we don't have UBI there's a need for a job to feed yourself.

[adventured]

Every nice welfare state has a lot of unemployed people.

France has a permanent unemployed class, with perpetually high unemployment as a result of their labor laws and generous welfare state. Those people are not starving to death.

Clearly UBI is in fact not necessary at all, so say the best countries in the world, from Denmark to Canada.

[toweringgoat]

Germany? Switzerland? Both are welfare states (even if not as extreme as some places), and have low unemployment.

[Hei1Fuya]

German unemployment benefits are conditional on showing evidence that you're seeking jobs. So it's still founded on the assumption that everyone able should be working.

[ambicapter]

Are you saying that non-welfare states never have a permanent unemployed class? Or (non-exclusive or) that they have fewer unemployed, on average?

[mike22223333]

So you are going to justify it like that? These days liberals are falsely using the word liberal. A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what. Not what your emotions say.

[munchbunny]

A liberal is a person who supports the law no matter what.

That's so wrong it's not even relevant. It's like if you looked up "dog" in the dictionary and the definition was "a leafy plant."

Are you sure you didn't mean a "literal"?

[danharaj]

Where did you get that idea?

[happytoexplain]

My interpretation is the opposite - a lot of events lately provoke critical arguments that use the objective verbiage of legality and human rights to frame emotional, subjective opinions. E.g. the line between a private platform reasonably removing a user or something a user posted for ToS violation, and an attack on free speech. Or the line between reasonably punishing an employee who has violated workplace behavior policies, and an attack on innocence until proven guilty. I would argue that, in this domain of examples, liberals explicitly favor reason and prudence, not extremity toward one side or the other (though there may certainly be cases where there is a general bias toward one side of the line or the other that arguably fails that ideology).

[UncleMeat]

Good to know that these classical liberals would have supported slavery, denying voting rights to women, and jim crow.

That's not really a system that I'd like to follow.

[swang]

didn't you just condemn the accuser yourself by assuming she is lying without a jury of her peers to reach a verdict?! /s

what you are advocating for here is a nanny state where every time there is an indiscretion a person is innocent until the full power of an international court comes in to deem a person guilty. you don't like the way society is going with this, yet your argument is that we need a trial to convict something in the public opinion.

instead of advocating for one extreme to fight another extreme why not just use your own reasoning to determine which person you believe. google found the accusation credible, yet did nothing for the _victim_ other than tell them to keep quiet. is that also justice to you?

and you think google actually wants some kind of trial on this? if they did they would be referring these matters to the local authorities. but instead it's just covered up, it's been "handled"

don't worry though since it seems like no one actually gets punished for this kinda stuff other than a public shaming.

[eberkund]

What would you suggest? Asking a woman to take off her shirt for a massage or hitting on her during an interview; while creepy, is not illegal so there would be no reason to bring this matter into a courtroom.

[swang]

That is my whole point. How do you convict this?

Spitting in general in the US is not illegal. Should you spit inside of a store? No and you’ll probably be asked to leave. When the owner says that dude is an asshole who spat in my store do you respond, “hold up where is his jury of peers?”

Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer. The bigger issue is do you want to work under someone who does that? Either that person has no understanding of societal cues or they do and are asserting their power to take advantage of someone.

[munchbunny]

How do you convict this?

I assume you've had to take sexual harassment training before? It's usually explained there. In the United States, the EEOC files lawsuits on behalf of the victims.

Pretty sure there is a lot of legal liability in asking for a massage or hitting on someone during an interview but I’m not a lawyer

Yup, there is, and it comes from the EEOC suing you.

[ur-whale]

>Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty?

In most modern media, certainly not. And on Slate, it's usually the opposite (guilty until proven innocent), especially if the subject happens to be in one of the supposedly dominant classes (white|male|rich|anglo-saxon|straight, etc...)