Well, of course. It’s only fair. You can’t change a rule then go back and hold prior behaviors accountable according to the new rule. It’s just common decency.
I'm not sure how this applies here? This isn't about a retroactive change to Google's misconduct standards for its employees, so no staff are being held accountable according to a new rule.
It's also not about suits between individuals. It's employees seeking damages from Google, so there's no third party outside Google and the plaintiff who could be harmed by the switch. And the plaintiff shouldn't be harmed, because removing the requirement for arbitration wouldn't deny it to anyone who wanted it.
As far as "holding Google accountable for prior events under a new rule", that's pretty much what people were asking them to agree to in the first place. But even worse, Google's statement says all future claims - even about past events - will operate under the new rule. So Google is already going to be held accountable for past events under this rule, and this is just disadvantaging the people who already opened claims.
The prohibition against ex post facto law in government makes sense because they are ripe for abuse. But there are already checks against abuse in the private sphere, including potential litigation for wrongful termination and a desire to keep quality employees. Employees should not be able to get away with poor behavior just because it was not techincally against the rules. When my daughter exhibits a lack of judgment, I might make a new rule; but she's still going to be punished because she should have known better. Employees should know better, and if they don't, they should err on the side of not doing the thing.
Of course, that's not really what's happening here with Google. What's happening is Google stated that the would not force people into arbitration, but they're still forcing people into arbitration.
I wonder what legal standing a private company's "policy" has. Is it written into a contract of some sort, "if you are accused of sexual misconduct, we will follow policy X"? Are all those contracts now being updated?
Realistically, Google can handle this how they want, so I don't see why they can't change how they handle current claims (within reason, of course, I'm sure if your arbitration date is tomorrow, maybe it's bad to change that so suddenly). Of course, Google is going to want to minimize the public knowing about any of these claims, so they'll do what they can to keep it quiet.
I get the feeling that these policies have more value to marketing dept. than the legal dept. After all, there many things that constitute "sexual misconduct" that aren't illegal.
At my company I sign documents. That are tied to money. If the terms were to change -- it would be s problem.
Just because it is called a policy does not mean it can be changed without notice and back dated.
How would you feel if your insurance company retroactively changed their policies on how active auto claims were handed ? Good thing it's not legal for them to do that.
In any case. Google can't always do what the want. The have to follow laws too.
You might be able to void a policy if both the plaintiff and defendant agreed.
I agree. That this is now just a dog and pony show.
It's less of a rule, and more of a change of venue. They 100% should be holding people accountable for this kind of behavior in a public setting to make damn sure the guilty do not victimize anyone else.
It's also not about suits between individuals. It's employees seeking damages from Google, so there's no third party outside Google and the plaintiff who could be harmed by the switch. And the plaintiff shouldn't be harmed, because removing the requirement for arbitration wouldn't deny it to anyone who wanted it.
As far as "holding Google accountable for prior events under a new rule", that's pretty much what people were asking them to agree to in the first place. But even worse, Google's statement says all future claims - even about past events - will operate under the new rule. So Google is already going to be held accountable for past events under this rule, and this is just disadvantaging the people who already opened claims.