[shadowgovt]

I see what you mean. I think I'd say "correct, kind of." Also from the memo:

"""In furtherance of these legitimate interests, employers must be permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace,” rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action."""

In essence, the memo from Mr. Sophir does not claim Damore had already created a hostile work environment. It does not have to consider that question one way or the other, because it is legal for Google to fire Mr. Damore on the expectation that his conduct would lead to a hostile work environment. The fact Google had already lost two candidates in the pipeline who cited Damore's memo as their reason for withdrawing was evidence enough of the risk.

(This reminds me of the rule of thumb regarding forum moderation: the line for when content can be curtailed and users can be banned is well away from the actual line of legality, because the goal of such policies is to not end up in court in the first place).

[dbsmith83]

Agreed, though that is what I am criticizing Google for (being overzealous). As unfortunate as it is to lose 2 candidates, I would value employees who can tolerate people with opinions they don't like

[shadowgovt]

There's plenty of such opinions.

But whether Damore's were valuable or not isn't really up to Google, as an American company. Title VII carves out several opnions as, by law, not "valuable" in the sense that expressing them constitutes either harassment or creation of a hostile work environment. And doing business in America means complying with that law; debating the philosophy underpinning such a law is not the purpose of an American workplace.

[dbsmith83]

> Title VII carves out several opnions as, by law, not "valuable" in the sense that expressing them constitutes either harassment or creation of a hostile work environment. And doing business in America means complying with that law...

Yeah, but the thing is that what Damore did was nowhere near the criteria of title vii hostile work environment. You're making it sound as if there was some legal obligation for Google (or any other American business) to let him go, but there was not. It was cowering to activists which lead to the termination, not any legal obligation for doing business. The argument that it had anything to do with title vii holds no water for me

[shadowgovt]

Google's not obligated to figure out exactly where the line of legality is. Especially when they've already lost two candidates. They're not in the business of protecting the Damores of the world (nor should they be).

The title VII argument may hold no water for you. If you find a way into the NLRB board of judges, that may matter to companies.

[dbsmith83]

> Google's not obligated to figure out exactly where the line of legality is.

Sure, but it is in their business interests to have a good approximation for where the line is, hence why they have lawyers. My point is that from everything I have read about it, it doesn't even seem like they were close to said line

[shadowgovt]

Those lawyers, apparently, disagreed with that assessment (and the NLRB was on track to uphold there was no wrongful termination).