That's exactly what a lot of companies do when someone gives 2 weeks notice. Send them home right away and pay them for the 2 weeks so you can keep them from filing unemployment and have them on the hook for any exit interview / handoff questions etc. They always want you to sign "something" as part of the process, too.

Yes, I'm aware of how FB&Google work.

> when someone gives 2 weeks notice.

But she didn't give 2 weeks notice. This seems to be the key detail.

Definitely! The terms of her resignation are unclear.

If you give an employer an ultimatum and they don't want to give in to your demands then is that giving notice or quitting on the spot or something else? Should her managers/google legal have waited for her to tell them when exactly she was going to leave?

> Should her managers/google legal have waited for her to tell them when exactly she was going to leave?

Yes, if they wanted her to resign they should have waited for her to resign rather than fire her. If they fired her, seems odd to call it a resignation.

> Timnit wrote that if we didn’t meet these demands, she would leave Google and work on an end date. We accept and respect her decision to resign from Google.

As an employee, I agree, it is twisted to call it a resignation.

As an employer, of course that's exactly what they'd do with any employee who says "I quit, I'll tell you exactly when" and then proceeds to blast out a disruptive email.

This seems to fit neatly under "play stupid games, win stupid prizes".

>you can keep them from filing unemployment

You cannot file for unemployment aid if you resign or are terminated for cause. You can only get assistance if your termination is the result of your position being eliminated, otherwise known as a reduction in force. This is valid in California and I believe true in every other state in the US.

Employees file for unemployment all the time when they may or may not be eligible. There is a whole appeal process which takes a look at who is really the "moving party" when an employee leaves.

> Frequently after notice of a quit, layoff, or discharge has been given, either the claimant or the employer will act to accelerate the separation. Such action can alter the character of the separation.

https://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Voluntary_Quit_VQ_135.htm

I don't really think unemployment is relevant in this case. I am interested in whether she technically quit or resigned though.

If you sent your boss a letter that said "I will resign if you do not meet conditions X, Y, and Z." and they decide to not meet those demands, what do you expect the company to do?

Let you continue to have access to company resources? My expectations are they would immediately terminate access to all company resources, pay me 2 weeks, send me a letter wishing me good luck on my future endeavors, and send an email to my co-workers saying I resigned.

Now later I might think, shoot maybe I shouldn't have threatened to quit if they didn't meet my demands because I really liked my job. But I don't think we should pretend this isn't exactly what 95% of all corporations would do in a similar situation.

Google didn't do that. They terminated her employment immediately. They also said it was because of her email.

Wait what part didn't Google do?

Pay her 2 weeks and wish her luck.

I assumed she was paid out her 2 weeks. Do you have reason to believe the didn't or won't do that?

I think the wishing of luck was circumvented by the media firestorm. Her first tweet was about losing corporate access which is usually the first thing H.R. does once a decision has been made.

She shared what she claimed was an email from her manager. It said her employment was terminated immediately because of her email to non management employees. I believe it was sent before the first tweet. She shared it before the media picked it up.

The employee remains employed in your scenario. Just without duties or access. Terminating employment immediately and not saying anything about severance implies not paying.