Because the hiring manager personally told me that was why he hired the person and why the white guy and Indian guy was not getting a call. More than once. And one of them even said that this was a direct order from their manager. They were told to improve diversity metrics. When you tell a direct report to do something, you should not be surprised when they do it.

Because there are explicit examples of this with supporting evidence given in the lawsuit.

No, there aren't. There are alleged examples and supposed evidence of lots of things in the lawsuit, but that isn't one of them.

Yes, in paragraphs 174 to 198, but specifically 179 to 181.

Nothing in 174-198 is supported by evidence in the filing (this isn't unusual at this stage, since that's not generally required in an initial filing, but your claim was of evidence), except 188, which is part of an allegation of adverse politically-motivated job treatment, not hiring based on race/gender.

So, no, there are no examples with evidence of people hired just for minority status in the lawsuit filing.

Yes there is, there's an email embedded in the paragraphs I outlined.

You might think that's not direct evidence, but it's evidence that supports the story in the paragraphs I outlined.

It says explicitly in paragraph 179: "Upon information and belief, the Google employee was not selected due to the fact that the hiring managers were looking solely for “diverse” individuals, and as a Caucasian male, the Google employee did not help fill their mandatory (and illegal) quotas."

And then "the Google employee’s former director initiated a “Diversity Team Kickoff” with the intent to freeze headcount so that teams could find diversity candidates to help fill the empty roles. Google was specifically looking for women and non-Caucasian individuals to fill these roles."

I think _you_ think that _I_ think this is damning proof and that the case is settled, and I've never claimed that. I just said that there are examples of people being hired because of their diversity status, with supporting evidence.

I'm not saying the evidence is true, or that it's directly related, but it _is_ "supporting evidence".

> Yes there is, there's an email embedded in the paragraphs I outlined

Yes, at 188; I addressed it. It's evidence provided for something, but not the thing you claimed.

> It says explicitly in paragraph 179: "Upon information and belief, the Google employee was not selected due to the fact that the hiring managers were looking solely for “diverse” individuals, and as a Caucasian male, the Google employee did not help fill their mandatory (and illegal) quotas."

Yes, that's an allegation. No evidence supporting this allegation is included (and, further, it used the “on information and belief” language which indicates that the party filing the lawsuit does not have first-hand knowledge that the allegation is true, but expects to have evidence—e.g., attained through discovery—to prove it should the case go to trial.)

This is perfectly normal for a lawsuit complaint, of course, but does not support your claim of examples (or even an example) with evidence in the filing.

I really don't mean to be obnoxious or disagree just for the sake of saving face or whatever - I really just don't understand how you can claim that those passages are not an example of someone being denied a team position because they were explicitly favoring minority-candidates instead.

I understand that it's not proof of it, like I said, and I understand that there's no direct evidence supporting that claim.

What I'm saying is that the email they embed there is supporting evidence of the narrative outlined in those paragraphs.

And I don't understand how you can say "no evidence supporting this allegation is included" then.

At this point, I'm not sure how to phrase myself to get my point across either - english is a second language, so please excuse me.

I'm quite certain that we are in agreement - what we probably disagree with is my distilling this down to the single sentence that I did initially.

But even that is a sentence distilled in good faith on my part, I don't feel that I misrepresented it that badly, and it's the kind of sentence I'd use around the dinner table until someone wanted to dig further into it.