News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Pro... by jakelazaroff on Monday October 29, 2018 @06:14PM (#18332067)
From the original NY Times article [1]:

> Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. [...]

> When Google fires lower-level employees, it typically marches them out immediately and pays little, if any, severance. But for senior executives, Google weighs other factors, said former executives. A wrongful termination lawsuit could mean unwanted media attention for Google and the victims of a misconduct case, with a loss resulting in significant damages.

It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit or bad press.

What they definitely didn't have to do was this:

> Afterward, Google invested in Playground Global, a venture firm Mr. Rubin started six months after leaving the company.

It's one thing to pay severance if you don't think you can win an unlawful termination lawsuit, but it's another entirely to invest in that person's next venture after you're absolved of any legal obligation to them.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-...

Re:Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Pro... by filmgirlcw on Monday October 29, 2018 @06:20PM (#18332107)
Precisely.

Quoting myself from upthread

>My gut tells me that at the time of his ouster, Alphabet was worried more about the optics of a protracted lawsuit with Rubin, rather than a cover-up for a harassment claim coming to light. Presumably the other individual in the harassment case settled and signed an NDA, which would preclude public discussion and disclosure.

In 2014, that may have seemed like the "safe" bet. In 2018, it's coming back to bite Alphabet in the ass.

Re:Google Engineers Organizing a Walk Out to Protest the Pro... by dragonwriter on Monday October 29, 2018 @07:18PM (#18332554)
> It doesn't say explicitly, but it sounds like they didn't have a legal obligation to pay him; rather, they did so to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit

The possibility of the lawsuit indicates there was at least a plausible argument for a legal requirement.