News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a misconduct claim. Parent comment

Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by sonnyblarney on Thursday October 25, 2018 @02:31PM (#18303317)
Termination at will doesn't cover things that violates people's rights, and a whole host of other things.

You can't fire someone because they are black, or gay, or Mormon, or get sick - and probably not because they fall in love with each other either.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by nradov on Thursday October 25, 2018 @02:40PM (#18303388)
Most US employers absolutely can legally fire an employee because of who they fall in love with, as long as the action isn't based on a policy which disproportionately impacts a protected class.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by sonnyblarney on Thursday October 25, 2018 @02:47PM (#18303452)
Maybe you're right, but I'm doubtful. I wonder how it would hold up in a big supreme court challenge (or maybe it has already ... I'm not an expert)
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by dionidium on Thursday October 25, 2018 @03:39PM (#18303919)
On what grounds are you doubtful? The concept of protected classes is well-defined and well-tested and "office lovebirds" aren't one of those classes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by haikuginger on Thursday October 25, 2018 @10:37PM (#18306345)
For fuck's sake, "being gay" isn't even one of those classes.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by CalChris on Friday October 26, 2018 @01:51AM (#18307064)
Federal protected class, no. But in CA, yeah, it is.

https://www.employmentattorneyla.com/blog/2017/06/what-are-c...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by FireBeyond on Thursday October 25, 2018 @04:28PM (#18304298)
About the same as "employee says controversial thing in personal life". In other words, employer has absolutely every right to fire them for their self-expression.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by sonnyblarney on Friday October 26, 2018 @01:51PM (#18311429)
"About the same as "employee says controversial thing in personal life""

No way. Two people falling in love is not in the same category as someone saying public things.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by tptacek on Thursday October 25, 2018 @02:55PM (#18303535)
You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by sonnyblarney on Friday October 26, 2018 @01:52PM (#18311434)
"You think maybe employment at will is just waiting to be tested in the Supreme Court?"

It's in court right now.

And it always will be.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by richardknop on Friday October 26, 2018 @04:18AM (#18307585)
Maybe it should.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ... by Itaxpica on Thursday October 25, 2018 @02:55PM (#18303528)
Yes but "rights" are legally defined, not just 'well I feel like I have a right to this'. Employees dating their subordinates is not a protected class, so "and probably not because they fall in love with each other either" is factually incorrect.
[ Parent | on HN ]