To my knowledge, Damore has not been accused of any crime.
> was "creating a hostile work environment for women and minorities",
No, only an employer can do that. Damore might have engaged in actions in the workplace that, in context, made it an unacceptable risk that by continuing to employ him Google would risk creating a hostile work environment for women and/or other protected classes.
> He was fired for challenging (an anti-white, anti-male, anti-conservative) political orthodoxy, and that's illegal in California.
Advocating change to corporate, rather than public, policy does not seem to be even remotely “political activity”, which is what California law actually protects, not that the California law would be valid if and to the extent it required corporations to undertake actions prohibited by federal law.
It's a figure of speech; I wasn't referring to a legal crime.
> No, only an employer can do that. Damore might have engaged in actions in the workplace that, in context, made it an unacceptable risk that by continuing to employ him Google would risk creating a hostile work environment for women and/or other protected classes.
I agree. I'm just trying to make sense of the parent's claim that Damore's behavior constitutes a "hostile work environment".
> Advocating change to corporate, rather than public, policy does not seem to be even remotely “political activity”, which is what California law actually protects.
My argument is that Google made inferences about his public policy beliefs based on his "memo", and fired him for those inferences. In other words, they inferred that he was conservative, and fired him because they felt his conservatism was too much a threat. Whether or not his speech is protected under California law is up to the courts.
Never mind that firing someone for innocuous (if misguided) corporate policy improvements is still morally indefensible.
Well, it's your assertion. I don't see an argument supporting it.
EDIT: Removed snarkiness.
I corrected my previous comment.