No I don't, because I don't live in the U.S.

Google didn't fire him for the reasons I gave.

Him being toxic for the workplace culture and nobody wants to work with him isn't enough?

Sure, it could be. I think firing him was the right move. But if the parent commenter makes the argument he did in court, he's going to be violating labor law in a big way.

There's no way they could plausibly determine this in the time they have had. And, there's no way there aren't people at google who don't agree with him. Which is why they had to act.

The key to large organization management is control: they are doing this quickly before anything else happens. His presence both legitimises his point of view, and acts as a rallying point. If others are sufficiently emboldened, they may also act out. If they start organizing together, this has the potential of rapidly turn into a long standing issue for google.

> There's no way they could plausibly determine this in the time they have had.

Is that so? Do the complaints of numerous other employees not demonstrate some level of toxicity?

Edit -- thanks for helping me earn my karma today. It's delicious the way y'all are so eager to downvote me instead of engaging. It's almost like you think I have an ulterior motive being masked by a veneer of good-faith engagement or something. I wonder where I might have gotten that idea from...

They don't demonstrate that no one is willing to work with him. Moreover, there are a number of people claiming to be hearing cries of dismay from within google that he was fired. He's not quite the pariah you've painted him to be.

When you get laid off, they give you 30 days to find another department to work in. There's no reason why he wasn't afford the same, if his departure was due to co-workers not wanting to work with him any more.