Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ...
by tptacek on Thursday October 25, 2018 @04:54PM
(#18304504)
We're not talking about marital status, nor do we care that Drummond was married at the time the affair began. We care about the fact that he had the affair with a subordinate.
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ...
by ashelmire on Friday October 26, 2018 @02:12PM
(#18311560)
You seem to not get it.
Situation 1: Person A and B are married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Nobody has a problem with this, and policies generally don't have any problem with coworkers being married.
Situation 2: Person A and B are not married and have a sexual relationship. A is a VP, B is just a regular worker. Some people have a problem with this, and policies often have a problem with coworkers being married.
That's called discrimination based on marital status (or lack thereof).
Re:Google paid Andy Rubin $90M while keeping silent about a ...
by JamesBarney on Friday October 26, 2018 @04:08PM
(#18312352)
In case you didn't know, most companies would feel very uncomfortable with situation 1. Creating a situation where someone is managing their significant other is asking for disaster.
Other appeals courts have ruled otherwise, but the 9th district court has had a couple of precedents in the past, according to the article.
Personally, I think it's an interesting issue. If the company fires the higher ranked employee, they are probably losing more value.
It's also interesting that I think everyone would agree that it would be absurd to fire any employee if they were a married couple - yet absent the (mostly religious and tax related) binds of marriage, there's some moral judgment cast upon the participants. It seems so puritanical and absurd. What if the two employees got married before anyone found out about the affair? I bet they'd be protected both legally and in terms of moral or business implications.
It appears many states actually prevent firing based on marital status: https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB111041550490175318
From that one, "One reason is that about 20 states and many cities ban employment discrimination on the basis of marital status. If a married employee who has an affair is fired and an unmarried employee who has an affair isn't, the fired employee in those states conceivably could claim illegal discrimination, attorneys say. Thus, many employers turn a blind eye to marital cheating."