The reasons for his ouster weren't disclosed. I would be curious if Essential's investors (Redpoint, Altimeter, Amazon Alexa Fund) were aware of why Rubin left Google.
Moreover, this is a pattern at Google. Amit Singhal[1] was fired (also with a send-off and goodbye party and settled outstanding grants) after accusations of harassment were found credible.
He then landed as SVP of engineering at Uber, where he was forced to resign because he hadn't disclosed the prior HR complaint at Google. Now, obviously, the lack of disclosure is what did him in -- but why did Google not tell Uber that he was asked to leave during his background check?
Yes, Rubin likely would have sued. Yes, it likely would have been messy and very public. No, I do not believe for a second that Google settled to "protect" the victim; Google's settlement with the the alleged victim was certainly less than $90m.
Google settled b/c in 2014, the drama of fighting with someone like Rubin seemed more risky than just paying him off -- even with the risk that the reasons why might become public later. The climate of 2018 makes me believe that was a fundamental mistake and the company should have fought back to not pay money that a labor attorney could argue was not owed.
[1]: https://www.recode.net/2017/2/27/14745360/amit-singhal-googl...
You're ignoring the damage cause by the optics of such a lawsuit. Google being known as the company that used an allegation of harassment to try and cheat an exec out of his outstanding compensation would be atrocious for the company's image - and not to mention attach huge negative stigma around people who come forward with harassment campaigns against powerful people. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not the person or group who is at stake.
That's not the case with Matt Lauer at NBC. Lauer sued and NBC has continued to fight back. It's also not the case with Les Moonves at CBS (the CBS situation is much more complicated because of the broader disputes between CBS, Viacom, and the infighting on the board of directors) -- in fact, CBS has been roundly criticized for potentially paying out $100m to Moonves (even if they withheld $80m in stock). CBS' business reputation is in the shitter b/c they have paid out.
>- and not to mention attach huge negative stigma around people who come forward with harassment campaigns against powerful people. It's easy to be idealistic when you're not the person or group who is at stake.
This stigma already exists. Refusing to settle doesn't make it go away or make it any better. Any person who goes forward against a powerful executive -- no matter how much proof they have -- is almost always fucked over. Going forward doesn't lead to someone winning. Financial settlements mostly exist b/c it's understood that the complainant will have an incredibly difficult time finding future employment.
And you're also forgetting that the person who is the alleged victim in this case could and would be protected in filings by shield laws (it's possible that someone on the other side would leak the identity, but that's legally not supposed to happen). This would be a civil complaint, not criminal. Moreover, I feel certain that there was already a settlement with a very strict NDA in place (and if either party were to violate the NDA, there would be substantial consequences).
The person who brought the claims against Rubin already has a stigma around her neck. Her life was already torn apart in an investigation by HR and presumably in whatever settlement was achieved. Please don't use the fact that those that come forward are often re-victimized as an excuse to PAY PEOPLE WITH CREDIBLE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM $90 MILLION AND GIVE A HERO'S SENDOFF.
People who come forward almost always lose in very tangible ways -- even if they win. That's why coming forward is so difficult and why those that do are so incredibly brave.
I agree. The point is, refusing to pay Rubin and going to trial would have made the victim lose even more. She'd lose her privacy, for one. And if the case is lost she may lose her reputation and live the rest of her life branded as a false accuser.
Do you know if the accuser wanted to go to trial? If not then we have no business talking about how Google didn't act with the victim's interest in mind.
“Credible” isn't the same as “true” or even “more likely than not to be true”, even though it has recently become popular for credible allegations of certain wrongs to be treated as if they were proven true.
> Are you saying that companies should still pay severance to employees fired for sexual assault?
If a contract requires payment unless a certain wrong has been done, a party finding it credible that the wrong has been done that would relieve it of it's obligations, even if it would get a trier of fact to the same conclusion, hasn't actually established that it is free of the obligation.
Contract vs. at-will employment presents different considerations.
Google for "golden parachute" and "termination clause", e.g. https://www.thebalancecareers.com/golden-parachute-2276017. Yes, when you're valuable enough, you can actually require as part of your employment agreement that your employer pay you massive amounts of money for being terminated, even if it's for cause. Had they tried not to pay out the golden parachute, it would have been an open and shut case ending in a loss for them. (And, believe me, they wouldn't have been even remotely tempted to try because every executive there also has their own personal golden parachute.)
The point is, while Google itself determined that they had enough evidence to conclude that Rubin harassed someone, they probably didn't think they had enough evidence to convince a jury. All I'm saying is that the company should choose the least harmful option. Sometimes, being inflexible does more harm than good. For all we know, bringing this to trial would have made Google and the victim look like the bad guys, while the harasser looks like a hero standing up to a deceitful corporation. Instead, Google played it safe and chose not to risk it's reputation (which is an act of self interest) but also to avoid risking the reputation of the alleged victim (which is a benefit). Was this the right decision? Ultimately we'll never know short of inventing a time machine, but saying that Google unambiguously chose the worse of two options is short sighted.
Likely, because his contract (executives are almost never at-will employees) included a mutual non-disparagement clause, which literally prevents either party from ever saying anything negative about the other.
> No, I do not believe for a second that Google settled to "protect" the victim
No, they did it to protect themselves. The fact that the route to Rubin winning would—as it always is in harassment cases—been destroying the victim further was probably incidental to Google, but no less true for that.
> The climate of 2018 makes me believe that was a fundamental mistake and the company should have fought back to not pay money that a labor attorney could argue was not owed.
I'm not sure even in 2018 it would look better for Google to have fought, lost, and left the accuser as collateral damage. Oh, it would be better optics if they fought and won without the victim's life being further destroyed, but whether that actually was the rational expectation at the time seems far from clear.
From what I'm reading, Google paid Rubin the amount he was entitled to in his contract. Some people point out that Google could have paid him next to nothing for firing him with cause - but Rubin could have sued Google, and almost certainly would have made the claim that the harassment allegations we're Google's way of trying to avoid paying him - and from what I read, Google probably wanted to avoid this, because it would inevitably involve the details of the alleged assault going public. I assume that the alleged victim doesn't want this, we don't have good reports of how much proof there is for these allegations, and there's also the possibility of Google losing the suit and looking like they're the ones in the wrong.