1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

E-FILED
1/8/2018 9:43 AM
Clerk of Court
Superior Court of CA,
County of Santa Clara
18CV321529
Reviewed By: R. Walker

HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
RAVDEEP S. GREWAL (SBN: 308447)
rgrewal@dhillonlaw.com
GREGORY R. MICHAEL (SBN: 306814)
gmichael@dhillonlaw.com
DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
177 Post Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, California 94108
Telephone: (415) 433-1700
Facsimile: (415) 520-6593
Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Damore and
David Gudeman, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated

10
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

11

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

12

UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

13
14
15
16

JAMES DAMORE and DAVID
GUDEMAN, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,

17
18
19

v.
GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1-10,

20
21

Defendants.

22
23
24
25
26

Case Number:

18CV321529

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT:
1.
Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1101
2.
Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102
3.
Workplace Discrimination on the basis
of Gender and/or Race in Violation of
FEHA
4.
Workplace Harassment in Violation of
FEHA
5.
Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
6.
Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy
7.
Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab.
Code § 1102.5
8.
Failure To Prevent Harassment,
Discrimination, and Retaliation
9.
Unfair Business Practices, Bus. & Prof.
Code Section 17200 et seq.
10.
Declaratory Relief
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

27
28

1
Complaint

 1

1.

James Damore (“Damore”) and David Gudeman (“Gudeman” (together, “Plaintiffs”),

2

through their attorneys, Dhillon Law Group Inc., file this Complaint against Google, LLC.

3

(“Google”), a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10 (Google and Does, collectively,

4

“Defendants”). Upon personal knowledge, or, if so indicated, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs

5

allege as follows:
CASE SUMMARY

6
2.

7

Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf

8

of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their

9

perceived conservative political views by Google in California at any time during the time period

10

beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action

11

(“Political Class Period”); (ii) due to their male gender by Google in California at any time during the

12

time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this

13

action (“Gender Class Period”); and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race by Google in California at any

14

time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date

15

of trial in this action (“Race Class Period”) (Political Class Period, Gender Class Period, and Race

16

Class Period referred to collectively, as “Class Periods”). These violations also subject Google to

17

claims for violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq. 1

18

3.

Throughout the Class Periods, and in violation of California law, Google employees

19

who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the

20

workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as “diversity” hiring

21

policies, “bias sensitivity,” or “social justice,” were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically

22

punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights.

23

4.

Google’s open hostility for conservative thought is paired with invidious

24

discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred by law. Google’s management goes to

25

extreme—and illegal—lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race

26

and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and

27
28

1

In addition, Plaintiffs intend to assert claims under the Private Attorney General Act of California,
when those claims are perfected.
2
Complaint

 1

male employees and potential employees at Google.
5.

2

Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished

3

for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being

4

Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination—Google formed opinions about and

5

then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups

6

with assumed characteristics.
6.

7

Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox

8

opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted

9

bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were

10

openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an

11

environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view

12

or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could

13

harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so.
7.

14

Google employs illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and

15

favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their

16

quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than

17

others.

18

8.

Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to

19

their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-

20

wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at

21

Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the

22

Class Periods.

23
24

9.

repeating these practices against other employees or prospective employees now, and in the future.
THE PARTIES

25
26

Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate their legal rights, and to stop Google from

10.

Damore is an individual who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, worked in

27

Mountain View, California for Google as a Senior Software Engineer, a Software Engineer, and an

28

Intern. Damore was an employee of Google from 2013 until his wrongful termination on August 7,

3
Complaint

 1
2

2017.
11.

Gudeman is an individual who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, worked in

3

Mountain View, California for Google as a Software Engineer. Gudeman was an employee of Google

4

until his wrongful termination. Gudeman worked for Google from 2013 to December 2016.

5

12.

Google is a corporation that, at all times relevant to the Complaint, was incorporated

6

under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County,

7

California. Google is registered with the California Secretary of State for the purpose of transacting

8

business in California. Google is the direct employer of the named Plaintiffs.

9

13.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that DOES 1 through 10 are the partners,

10

agents, owners, shareholders, managers, or employees of Defendants, and are, or at relevant time

11

were, acting on their behalf. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants

12

sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10, but prays for leave to amend and serve

13

such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become known.

14
15

JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution,

16

Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except

17

those given by statute to other courts.”

18

15.

This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and belief,

19

each Defendant is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or

20

otherwise intentionally avails himself or itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of

21

jurisdiction over it or him by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and

22

substantial justice.

23

16.

Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Google resides,

24

transacts business, and/or has offices in the County of Santa Clara, and most of the unlawful

25

practices, acts, and omissions alleged herein took place in the County of Santa Clara.
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

26
27
28

17.

On November 30, 2017, Damore filed an administrative complaint against Google

with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and was issued a right-

4
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5

to-sue letter.
18.

On November 30, 2017, Gudeman filed an administrative complaint against Google

with the DFEH, and was issued a right-to-sue letter.
19.

Damore and Gudeman exhausted the necessary administrative remedies by filing the

above-referenced charge of discrimination with the DFEH, and obtaining right-to-sue letters.

6

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS

7

JAMES DAMORE

8

Damore’s Employment With Google

9

20.

Damore received his Bachelor of Science degree in Molecular Biology, Physics, and

10

Chemistry from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He then earned his Master of Science

11

in Systems Biology from Harvard University.

12

21.

Damore first began working for Google as a Harvard student in or around the summer

13

of 2013 as a Ph.D. software intern. By around December 2013, Google converted this internship into a

14

full-time position, and hired Damore as a Software Engineer.

15
16
17

22.

Damore worked on the team that was responsible for indexing and serving Google’s

search results for users.
23.

Damore was diligent and loyal, and received substantial praise for the quality of his

18

work. Damore received the highest possible rating twice, including in his most recent performance

19

review, and consistently received high performance ratings, placing him in the top few percentile of

20

Google employees. Throughout the course of his employment with Google, Damore received

21

approximately eight performance bonuses, the most recent of which was approximately 20% of his

22

annual salary. Damore also received stock bonuses from the Google amounting to approximately

23

$150,000 per year.

24

24.

Damore was never disciplined or suspended during his entire tenure at Google.

25

25.

Based on Damore’s excellent work, Damore was promoted to Senior Software

26
27
28

Engineer in or around January 2017—just eight months before his unlawful termination by Google.
26.

Damore did not have any direct reports, did not supervise employees, did not assign

work to other employees, and was not an integral or crucial part of the hiring and firing process at

5
Complaint

 1
2

Google. Damore was not allowed to discipline employees.
27.

Damore’s immediate supervisor was Cristian Tapus (“Tapus”). Tapus reports to Chuck

3

Wu (“Wu”), Senior Director of Engineering for Google. Wu, in turn, reports to Ari Balogh

4

(“Balogh”), Vice President of Engineering at Google. Balogh reports to Sridhar Ramaswamy

5

(“Ramaswamy), the Senior Vice President of GPI and Ads. Ramaswamy, in turn, reports to Sundar

6

Pichai (CEO of Google), who ultimately reports to Larry Page (CEO of Alphabet).
Google Shamed Teams Lacking Female Parity at TGIF Meetings

7
8
9
10
11

28.

On March 30, 2017, Damore attended a weekly company-wide meeting called a “TGIF

meeting.” These weekly meetings were used as an avenue for employees to connect and discuss
certain topics involving Google.
29.

The TGIF meeting on March 30, 2017 was entitled “Women’s History Month,” and

12

Google brought in two presenters for this get-together: Ruth Porat (“Porat”), the Chief Financial

13

Officer of Google, and Eileen Naughton (“Naughton”), the Human Resources Director of Google.

14

30.

During the March 30, 2017 TGIF meeting, either Porat or Naughton pointed out and

15

shamed individual departments at Google in which women comprised less than 50% of the workforce.

16

Alternatively, they applauded and praised departments, such as the sales department, where women

17

comprised more than 50% of the workforce.

18

31.

During the event, Porat and Naughton also discussed that when looking at groups of

19

people for promotions or for leadership opportunities on new projects, Google would be taking into

20

account gender and ethnic demographics. They then mentioned that Google’s racial and gender

21

preferences in hiring were not up for debate, because this was morally and economically the best thing

22

to do for Google.

23

32.

Damore was surprised by Google’s position on blatantly taking gender into

24

consideration during the hiring and promotion processes, and in publicly shaming Google business

25

units for failing to achieve numerical gender parity. Damore believed that blatant gender preferences

26

and quotas were inconsistent with US and California discrimination laws. This TGIF meeting was one

27

of the factors that led to Damore attending Google’s Diversity and Inclusion Summit.

28

6
Complaint

 1
2

Google’s Diversity And Inclusion Summit
33.

In or about June 2017, Damore attended a “Diversity and Inclusion Summit”

3

(“Summit”) conducted by Google at the Mountain View campus. Approximately 100 employees

4

attended this event. Damore felt pressured to attend the event because Google proclaims “commitment

5

to diversity and inclusion” to be an important factor in deciding promotion to leadership positions.

6

Due to his excellent work performance, Damore was on the path to a leadership position at Google

7

before his abrupt termination.

8
9
10
11

34.

The Summit was organized by Google’s senior vice presidents and other members of

Google’s leadership team, including Balogh and Ramaswamy. Employees were allowed to ask
questions, and there were also breakout groups for subsequent conversations.
35.

The Summit covered general topics such as how Google could increase its diversity.

12

Specifically, the Google presenters went through some of their policies that were designed to

13

accomplish this such as treating preferred categories of people (women, certain but not all ethnic

14

minority groups) differently during the hiring process by providing extra interviews, and putting

15

applicants into a more welcoming environment based on their race or gender. The Google presenters

16

also discussed putting “diverse” individuals into high priority queues so that they were more likely to

17

be hired, and hired faster.

18
19
20

36.

Google defined “diverse” individuals as women or individuals who were not Caucasian

or Asian.
37.

At the Summit, Damore spoke with Meghana Rao (“Rao”) from Google’s Human

21

Resources department (“Google HR”). Damore told Rao that he believed some of the positions taken

22

by Google were divisive and misguided. Specifically, Damore mentioned that it seemed like Google

23

was elevating political correctness over merit.

24

38.

Rao responded to Damore’s comment by stating “some of the political things at Google

25

were a problem.” They discussed how some Google employees with conservative views and values

26

did not feel included, and Rao mentioned how she, and other HR representatives, had received similar

27

complaints in the past from employees with conservative views.

28

39.

While at the Summit, Damore participated in breakout group sessions with other

7
Complaint

 1

employees. There he asked questions about whether Google looked at viewpoint diversity with respect

2

to hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as a workplace. The answer he

3

received was that Google only looked at demographic diversity (gender and/or race) when making

4

hiring and promotion decisions—not at viewpoint diversity.

5

40.

At the end of the program, the Google presenters specifically asked employee attendees

6

to give written feedback on the program. This prompted Damore to draft a memorandum entitled

7

“Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.”
Damore’s Memorandum on Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber

8
9

41.

On or about the end of June 2017, after Google asked for feedback on the contents of

10

the Summit, Damore spoke with different Google employees about the issues they felt were not evenly

11

covered at the Summit, and drafted a memorandum (“memo”) based on those conversations. Multiple

12

employees made suggestions and provided feedback, and this memo was edited multiple times.

13

Damore named this memo “go/pc-considered-harmful,” using Google’s own naming conventions. A

14

copy of the final version of the memo with all the edits incorporated is attached as “Exhibit A.”

15

42.

Damore observes in the memo that Google employees and management focus greatly

16

on alleged unconscious racial and gender bias, but neglect political orientation, which is actually a

17

result of deep moral bias.

18

43.

Damore specifically stated in the memo that his purpose for writing the memo was to

19

promote discussion among Google employees regarding the “diversity and inclusion” issues covered

20

in the Summit. He wrote: “[o]pen and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our

21

blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.” Damore further stated, “Of course,

22

I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I

23

consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to

24

discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.”

25

44.

The memo then went on to discuss the differences in political ideologies between the

26

leftist liberals and the rightist conservatives, and suggested that neither ideology on its own was

27

“100% correct,” but that a balance between the two would be best for society and Google. The memo

28

then identified Google as having a liberal bias.

8
Complaint

 1

45.

Damore’s memo went on to discuss conclusions made in scientific studies, and

2

included hyperlinks to the studies that Damore referenced. The memo linked to articles and studies

3

from the Wiley Online Library, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Quillette, the

4

British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, and The Atlantic. These citations were provided for the

5

purpose of identifying potential alternative bases for differential workplace patterns at Google, as

6

compared to the sole reason that Google provided—namely, hiring/employment bias. Google, and

7

certain employees and outsiders who eventually read this memo, ignored these citations, and later

8

publicly attributed the conclusions drawn from these studies directly to Damore himself.
46.

9

After identifying possible non-bias causes for the so-called gender gap identified as an

10

issue in the tech industry, Damore went on to suggest non-discriminatory ways of reducing the gender

11

gap that did not involve the illegal racial and gender quotas and preferences that Google openly admits

12

to having employed.
47.

13

Damore’s memo then explained the harms of Google’s current method of simply

14

looking at an individual’s race and/or gender when deciding who to hire, as it effectively lowered the

15

bar for underrepresented minorities and women and increased tensions between employees.

16

Furthermore, Damore pointed out that Google’s current method of increasing diversity resulted in

17

what is known as reverse discrimination, because Caucasian and Asian males were not being selected

18

for jobs and promotions due solely to their status as non-females or non-favored minorities.
48.

19

Damore ended his memo by addressing the problem in a constructive manner by

20

advocating that Google should treat employees and potential hires as individuals, not members of

21

tribes:

22
23
24
25
26

“I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is
100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities
have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have
an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not
saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for
quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their
group (tribalism).”
49.

Damore also suggested more concrete steps that Google could take to remedy its

27

problematic/illegal tribalist approach, including stopping the alienation of conservatives, recognizing

28

the fact that Google has its own biases and confronting those, and having open and honest discussions.

9
Complaint

 1
2
3
4

Damore Posted The Memo Only For His Coworkers to Discuss
50.

Damore submitted the memo to Google HR using the feedback form provided by the

Google presenters at the Summit.
51.

Damore’s memo was written entirely on Google’s GoogleDocs systems. The comments

5

section of the memo was left open for other Google employees to leave their thoughts on the document

6

from the day Damore drafted the document to the day Damore was terminated. This document was not

7

hidden in any manner.

8
9
10

52.

Damore published multiple versions of the memo, internally, each version altered after

receiving solicited, individual feedback from numerous Google employees.
53.

On July 3, 2017, at the suggestion of a co-worker, Damore posted the memo on a

11

Google group discussion forum called CoffeeBeans. CoffeeBeans was an internal Google forum used

12

to discuss various issues at Google, such as workplace diversity.

13

54.

In parallel with the discussion group created in CoffeeBeans, Damore emailed

14

individuals responsible for Google’s diversity programs, the Women at Google Program, the Code of

15

Conduct team, and Google HR. Damore also asked whether certain diversity programs that were

16

aimed at helping individuals on the basis of their gender or race, such as “Women Who Code,”

17

“BOLD” (an internship program offered only to women and underrepresented minorities), and

18

“Stretch” (a class Google offers only to women) were legal, and asked how using someone’s protected

19

status, such as race and/or gender, in making employment decisions, was legal.

20

55.

Damore emailed the Google Code of Conduct team to state that he believed some of

21

Google’s policies were not being applied equally, and were being violated. The Code of Conduct team

22

referred Damore to Google HR for further action on his concerns. Damore’s complaint about Google’s

23

illegal hiring and employment practices was never investigated or pursued by Google HR, other than

24

by firing him.

25

56.

The Women at Google group responded to Damore and stated that its goal was 50%

26

representation of women at Google. On or about June 2017, Damore met with an individual from the

27

Women at Google group named “Monica” to further discuss his memo, and the organization’s goals.

28

Monica agreed that Damore had a valuable perspective and should share that perspective with the

10
Complaint

 1

diversity teams, and she promised to connect Damore with such diversity teams, but she never did so,

2

despite Damore’s repeated requests.

3
4

Diversity Training Event
57.

On or about July 2017, after the Diversity and Inclusion Summit, Google held another

5

diversity training class (“Diversity Training”) at its Mountain View headquarters. Damore attended

6

this event based on his similar motivations for attending the Summit—namely, because Google

7

factored “diversity and inclusion” into its employment advancement opportunities.

8
9
10

58.

The Diversity Training was broken into two parts: 1) an online course, followed by, 2)

an in-person training.
59.

Damore provided feedback in response to the online portion of the Diversity Training,

11

by asking whether Google accounted for political viewpoint bias in the workplace, since Google was

12

addressing other biases. Google’s only response was that Damore should attend the in-person training.

13

60.

At the in-person training, entitled “Bias Busting,” Google discussed how biases against

14

women exist in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace. The training

15

was run by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google, and there were approximately 20 Google employees

16

present. Damore disagreed with this one-sided approach. When Damore verbalized his dissent and his

17

concerns with the one-sided presentation, other employees, including managers, laughed at him

18

derisively. They considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of

19

disparagement.

20

61.

At the end of the Diversity Training, the presenters asked the audience members to

21

submit any written feedback they might have to them. In response, Damore electronically submitted

22

the memo he had drafted, which had been updated multiple times with comments and feedback from

23

other Google employees, once again to Google HR. Google HR once again ignored Damore, and did

24

not respond to the memo in any way.

25

62.

On or about August 2, 2017, at the suggestion of a Google colleague, Damore

26

submitted the edited memo to skeptics@google.com (“Skeptics”), another message board for Google

27

employees only. Damore explicitly stated that the purpose of submitting the memo to the group was

28

for Google employees to discuss different views and look at matters from a different perspective,

11
Complaint

 1

including the conservative perspective; otherwise, all Google employees would simply hear their same

2

opinions regurgitated over and over again, and never enrich their experiences with different

3

viewpoints.
63.

4
5

Within the next few days after Damore published the memo on the Skeptics forum, the

memo became more and more widely viewed on the private Google forums.
64.

6

On or about August 4, 2017, an unknown Google employee leaked the memo to either

7

Vice Motherboard or Gizmodo, which selectively quoted from the memo and misinterpreted it. This

8

“news story,” distorting Damore’s internal memo on workplace issues, was picked up by other media

9

outlets, until Damore’s memo went viral across the world.

10

65.

On August 4, 2017, Damore attended a meeting with Rao and another representative

11

from Google HR. At the meeting, Rao stated that Google was aware of Damore’s memo, and although

12

Google could not ask him to take it down because it was protected political speech, they still thought it

13

was in his best interest to do so. Damore understood from this meeting that Google was threatening

14

him with termination for his internal speech about workplace issues, including his critique on Google’s

15

gender and race quota programs and its dismissal of unpopular (conservative) political viewpoints.
Damore Received Threats From His Coworkers

16
66.

17
18

After Damore’s memo went viral outside Google, Damore began receiving multiple

threats and insults from his coworkers
67.

19

On August 3, 2017 George Sadlier (“Sadlier”), a Director at Google, sent out a mass

20

email condemning James’ essay as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest” and promising an HR

21

investigation into Damore. Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against

22

Damore. Subsequently, On Friday, August 4, 2017, Damore received a late-night email from Alex

23

Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google in Sadlier’s organization, which stated, “You’re a

24

misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.”

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

12
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

68.

Hidalgo’s email was another example of how Google’s management team encouraged

13

rank-and-file employees to attack other Googlers who expressed political viewpoints outside the

14

Company’s very narrow views.

15

69.

Damore forwarded Hidalgo’s email to Google HR, and was told to work from home for

16

some time until emotions cooled down. Similar threats followed from other coworkers. Google

17

executives and employees condemned Damore, his memo, and his views. Some coworkers demanded

18

Damore’s termination, and the termination of other individuals who shared his views.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

13
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Google Terminated Damore

16
17

70.

Damore was terminated on Monday, August 7, 2017 at approximately 6:00 p.m., via

18

telephone, as he had been working from home that day, pursuant to HR’s instruction following the

19

Alex Hidalgo threat of August 4.

20

71.

Damore received a call from Rao, who was also joined by Wu. After exchanging

21

pleasantries, Damore informed Rao and Wu that he had filed a complaint that morning with the

22

NLRB, due to Defendant’s prohibition of his engagement in a protected concerted activity (discussing

23

workplace conditions with his coworkers). Rao and Wu did not respond to this point.

24

72.

Wu told Damore he was being terminated for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” Rao

25

then stated this was the Google’ final decision. When Damore attempted to explain why his

26

termination was unlawful, Rao stated there would be no discussion.

27
28

73.

During the call when they terminated Damore, Neither Wu nor Rao identified any

Google policy or procedure that Damore had violated.

14
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5

Google Employees Were Awarded Bonuses for Arguing against Damore’s Views
74.

Not only did Google terminate Damore for his political views relating to workplace

issues, but they then rewarded individuals who disagreed with and disparaged Damore.
75.

The Google Recognition Team allowed employees to give fellow employees “Peer

6

Bonuses” for arguing against Damore’s political viewpoints. Peer Bonuses were typically reserved for

7

outstanding work performance or for going above and beyond an employee’s job duties. Defending the

8

liberal agenda, or defending violations of California employment law, is not in any Google employee’s

9

job description.

10

76.

In one example of this, an employee gave a Peer Bonus to another employee, and stated

11

that the bonus was for “speaking up for googley values and promoting [diversity and inclusion] in the

12

wretched hive of scum and villainy that is [Damore’s Memo].” The Google Recognition Team

13

reviewed this justification, considered it appropriate, and allowed the bonus to proceed.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

15
Complaint

 1
2

77.

On August 5, 2017, Colm Buckley (“Buckley”), a high-ranking SRE Director, stated

his intention to stifle political dissent within Google.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
DAVID GUDEMAN
17
Gudeman Begins Working at Google
18
78.

Gudeman first began working for Google in or around October 8, 2013, until his

19
termination on or around December 5, 2016.
20
79.

Gudeman was a conservative, a Caucasian, and a male at Google, and was

21
discriminated against and harassed as a result. Gudeman was ultimately terminated for these protected
22
characteristics.
23
The Derail Document
24
80.

On or about August 20, 2015, Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), an L7 SWE Manager, drafted

25
and published a document on a Google-employees only website, entitled, “Derailing.” This document
26
discussed how individuals might attempt to silence someone’s opinions or distract from someone’s
27
point of view. The document was aimed at Caucasian males, and conflated marginalization with white
28

16
Complaint

 1

male privilege. The document essentially claimed through examples that any response but agreement

2

to a statement about bias, prejudice, or privilege was a “derailment.” Reductio ad absurdum, the thesis

3

of this document is that on this one particular set of topics, the left-wing political frame of systematic

4

bias, must always dominate, and the receiver must accept that frame, and its associated worldview, in

5

their response.

6

81.

Gudeman read this article, and disagreed with its premise, as did many other

7

employees. Gudeman left a comment stating his belief that men “need to understand that [Caucasian

8

males] are the victims of a racist and sexist political movement and it is not their fault.”

9

82.

Gudeman went on to state that “the point of this document is to disallow any defense at

10

all that a man might make when some woman complains about bias. There is no defense. The woman

11

is always right. The man has no alternative but to submit to her superior moral position. We have a

12

word for that attitude, it’s called ‘sexism.’”

13

83.

After Gudeman’s comments, others responded stating that he was misinterpreting the

14

document, to which Gudeman responded, “Well if that’s the point then you could be clearer, because

15

all I’m getting from this document is that when anyone claims bias, there is no possible defense, not

16

even the defense that the bias did not exist.” He then provided a helpful suggestion to assuage any

17

similar concerns other Caucasian men might have, and suggested, “Maybe a section on what a man

18

should do when a woman accuses him of bias in order to protect himself from a system that is highly

19

biased against him.”

20

84.

Gudeman’s comments were not well-received by other supposedly open-minded

21

Googlers. Gudeman even further stated in another comment, “I started out intending to change minds

22

by explaining logically and rationally what is offensive about this document. In response, I was treated

23

dismissively.”

24

85.

Gudeman compared this document to that which “slave owners would have written for

25

their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters,” in order to point out

26

prejudices involved with the document.

27
28

17
Complaint

 1

86.

Burchett, instead of applying the constructive criticism and potentially helping other

2

employees who felt similarly discriminated against like Gudeman did, stated that she was “[r]esolving

3

this comment. Also escalating to management.”

4

87.

Ironically, other Google employees began to “derail” Gudeman’s point of view. Under

5

the guise of advocating for an open dialogue, Burchett merely reported Googlers that disagreed with

6

the thesis of her document, as Gudeman did, to Google management as being “un-Googley.” This

7

further exemplifies the one-sided and flawed mindset of Google—that anyone that disagrees with you

8

is wrong and hateful.
Google Punished Gudeman for His Views on Racism and Discrimination

9
10
11
12

88.

After being reported to Google, Google HR spoke with Gudeman in or around

September 2015 regarding his posts.
89.

Google HR discussed Gudeman’s viewpoints on race and/or gender equality, and his

13

political viewpoints. Google HR chastised him for attempting to stand up for Caucasian males and his

14

conservative views.

15

90.

At the end of the HR meeting, Gudeman was issued a verbal warning.

16

91.

Gudeman complained to his colleagues about the lack of fairness that conservatives

17

received at Google, and the leeway Google provided for liberals to express their thoughts and opinions

18

without repercussions.

19
20
21

92.

After the 2016 presidential election, many employees at Google began to panic, having

expected a different outcome fully in line with their political views.
93.

On November 10, 2016, in response to many Google employee posting on different

22

Google-wide forums regarding their fears about the new administration, Gudeman wrote that anyone

23

“who believes President Trump will be out to get minorities, women or gays has absorbed a lot of

24

serious lies from their echo chamber. And the echo chamber is entirely one sided. You can’t watch TV

25

or go to movies without being constantly confronted with the leftist world view. Leftists can go their

26

whole life never being exposed to the conservative world view except in shows written by people

27

hostile to it.”

28

18
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

94.

Gudeman also stated in response to another Google employee that “[i]f you truly think

8

Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis [sic], or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled, then you are

9

so badly out of touch it borders on delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but are saying

10

them anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.”
Google Terminates Gudeman

11
12

95.

On November 9, 2016, a few days after President Trump was elected as President,

13

Sarmad Gilani (“Gilani”), a Google employee, posted the following message on a Dory thread (an

14

internal forum where Google employees can ask questions that other Google employees can respond

15

to): “As someone already targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim, I’m worried for

16

my personal safety and liberty. Will Google take a public stand to defend minorities and use its

17

influence, or just issue the usual politically nuanced statements about our values.”

18

96.

Gudeman responded skeptically to Gilani’s claim that he was targeted solely due to his

19

religion by asking, “In the administration of the most pro-Muslim president in history you were

20

targeted just for being a Muslim? Why didn’t you file a civil rights suit? The Justice Department

21

would take your side if it really happened.”

22

97.

23

by stating:

24

a.

Other Google employees immediately misinterpreted Gudeman’s post and responded

“‘If it really happened’? Come on David, let’s give our coworkers the benefit of the
doubt here and not suggest they’re lying.”

25
26

b.

“‘Pics or it didn’t happen’ isn’t a very constructive comment here.”

27

c.

“Reminds me of that ‘why you didn’t report sexual harassment to the police?’
argument. Pfff.”

28

19
Complaint

 1

98.

Gudeman attempted to explain that he was not suggesting that Gilani was lying, and

2

affirmatively stated that he “would not suggest [Gilani] was lying without specific knowledge of the

3

case.”

4

99.

Gudeman further stated that at the suggestion of another Googler, he searched Gilani’s

5

story of being profiled, and found “zero evidence for the claim that [Gilani] was targeted just for being

6

a Muslim.” Gudeman posed more questions about the FBI’s motives for looking into Gilani such as

7

the fact that Gilani had recently visited Pakistan, and that the FBI could have possibly found

8

something interesting about Gilani’s trip or the region that he visited.

9
10

100.

In response to Gudeman’s legitimate questions, a fellow Google employee became

hostile and stated that she had to escalate this thread, meaning that she reported it to Google HR.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

101.

Gudeman had another conversation with another Google employee on November 10,

18

2016, where he complained about being a conservative and a Trump supporter. Gudeman pointed out

19

that “Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google. Googlers feel comfortable

20

slandering them in a public forum and assume there will be no consequences.”

21
22
23

102.

Gudeman’s comment was met with anger and accusations of him “gaslighting” instead

of having genuine concerns.
103.

On or around December 5, 2016, Google HR reached out to Gudeman to discuss his

24

comments, including those surrounding Gilani’s post. Google HR stated that Gudeman had accused

25

Gilani of terrorism based on Gilani’s religion, and this was unacceptable. As a result of Gudeman’s

26

“accusations,” Google stated that he was being terminated.

27
28

104.

Gudeman attempted to simply question the logic behind a co-worker’s story of

victimization on the basis of his race and religion, but because of his political affiliations, Gudeman

20
Complaint

 1

was retaliated against and fired. Google employees were not allowed to question the diversity narrative

2

of the company, even to the point of questioning politically-charged factual assertions by fellow

3

employees to prove their own political agendas.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
105.

These interactions showed that the culture at Google was severe enough that employees

18
such as Gudeman were bullied into silence and required to tolerate harassment without pushing back,
19
yet Google’s management refused to consider their concerns to be valid or even worthy of
20
investigation.
21
POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS
22
Google Punished Other Employees Who Raised Similar Concerns

23
106.

Google employees have witnessed multiple instances in which hundreds of

24
“progressive” Googlers would target a single co-worker for harassment, and even potential violence,
25
over a politicized matter, humiliating the person and sabotaging his career. In some of these cases, the
26
victim of the targeted harassment campaign was expressing legitimate concerns about discrimination
27
against Caucasians and males in the workplace as a result of political agitation by social justice
28

21
Complaint

 1

activists. As a result of this mistreatment and retaliation, many Google employees have been afraid to

2

publicly come forward. Because of the virulent threats against them by fellow Google employees, their

3

names are not being used in the Complaint at this time.
107.

4

In one example, in May 2015, a Google employee brought evidence of harassment and

5

discrimination against other conservatives, males, and Caucasians, to the attention of Google HR.

6

Google HR made excuses for the progressive activists, and waved away the misconduct, thus ensuring

7

nothing was done about the systemic problem. Throughout the summer of 2015, the Google employee

8

discussed the issue with several other concerned employees, who shared the same protected traits. In

9

early August of 2015, the Google employee then raised the issue of race and gender

10

discrimination/harassment at Google with Urs Hölzle, a Senior Vice President. This resulted in a

11

targeted campaign of harassment and threats of blacklisting directed at the Google employee, which

12

the Google management did nothing to stop; in fact, several members of management made statements

13

that had the net effect of encouraging “unambiguous social pecking” of political dissidents.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

22
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

108.

On August 14, 2015, a Google employee, and several other employees, raised the same

21

issues of gender and racial discrimination with two other Senior Vice Presidents, in an email entitled

22

“Concerns regarding intimidation and blacklisting.” Google’s blacklists are discussed in more detail

23

below.

24

109.

On August 19, 2015, in clear retaliation for the Google employee’s ongoing attempts to

25

end political discrimination at work, his HR Manager and Director issued the employee a Final

26

Written Warning letter. At no point did Google ever retract or repudiate the threats and attacks aimed

27

at the Google employee.

28

110.

The warning alleged that the Google employee had violated Google’s policy to “create

23
Complaint

 1

a respectful culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, or unlawful discrimination of any kind.”

2

The examples of the comments for which the Google employee was punished included the following:

3

a. “Are you insinuating that it is a ‘jerk move’ to share your opinion
about a political blog post if 98% of Googlers disagree with you, but
it’s OK to share your opinion about a political blog post if 98% of
Googlers agree with you? If so, how do you reconcile this view with
Urs’ request to help make Google a supportive place for minorities of
any kind?”

4
5
6
7

b. Can you point to the industryinfo post in which somebody expressed
an opinion in a way that ignored what others think?”

8
9

c. “Many Googlers have claimed that it is ‘harassment’ or some other
rule violation to critique articles that push the Social Justice political
agenda. A few Googlers have openly called for others to be fired over
it. Do you support this viewpoint, and if so, can we add a clear
statement of banned opinions to the employee handbook so that
everybody knows what the ground rules are?”

10
11
12
13
14

None of these comments remotely may be described as disorderly, disruptive, derogatory name-

15

calling, abusive or profane, intimidating or coercive (in stark contrast to the hostile postings aimed at

16

conservative, male, and/or Caucasian Google employees and at others who made a stand against

17

Google’s discriminatory treatment of employees in these protected categories).
111.

18

The Final Written Warning itself repudiated Google’s own policy: “We strive to

19

maintain the open culture often associated with startups 2, in which everyone is a hands-on contributor

20

and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.” Ironically, the Google employee had provided

21

ample evidence that Caucasian males who challenged certain assumptions behind the so-called “social

22

justice” agenda were routinely and unfairly branded as “racists,” “sexists,” or “bigots,” and targeted

23

for severe written abuse and career sabotage.
112.

24
25

According to Google’s policies and procedures, the next step after a Final Written

Warning is termination.

26
27
28

2

Google is not a startup. Google operates 70 offices in more than 40 countries, and has a market
capitalization over $700 billion.
24
Complaint

 1

Google Failed to Protect Employees from Workplace Harassment

2

Due to Their Support for President Trump

3

113.

In October of 2016, a Site Reliability Manager at Google became aware that a Google

4

employee was a supporter of President Trump, and held socially conservative views. These two

5

individuals did not work together, but had become acquainted through the company’s social mailing

6

lists.

7

114.

At a group lunch where the manager was present, the Google employee expressed

8

concerns about Google’s intolerance of political minorities, such as conservatives. He stated that

9

employees whose politics closely aligned with the senior management’s views were receiving

10

favorable treatment, while political dissidents were unfairly denied promotions. SL became enraged

11

when he heard this, and stormed off.

12
13
14

115.

In March 2017, the manager scheduled a surprise meeting with the Google employee’s

manager in an attempt to sabotage the Google employee’s annual performance review.
116.

The manager falsely accused the Google employee of participating in an illegal

15

“doxxing” campaign to publish an individual’s personal information on the internet for the purpose of

16

harassment. SL also suggested that the Google employee was involved in illegal workplace

17

discrimination, which was absolutely false and unsupported.

18

117.

When the Google employee later met with his manager, his manager stated that he was

19

very concerned about the doxxing allegation the manager had made. The Google employee provided

20

evidence that the manager’s claims were false and concocted, but his name and reputation were

21

already besmirched.

22

118.

In March of 2017, the manager also posted on a political mailing list visible to all

23

80,000 employees to brag about his meeting with the Google employee’s manager for the purposes of

24

harassing and undermining him.

25

119.

In this conversation, the manager made additional politically motivated threats directed

26

at members of the “conservatives@” mailing list community at Google. The manager threatened to

27

call in Employee Relations to comb through the mailing list archives to nitpick old postings for

28

possible Code of Conduct violations. Employee Relations at Google is tasked with investigating

25
Complaint

 1

employees for policy violations, and building a case for discipline. They do not mediate disputes or

2

offer advice.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

120.

The manager also threatened to apply Google’s stringent, politically intolerant and

15

legally questionable employee handbook speech code to communications taking place between friends

16

on non-work forums, off the clock. As the manager stated: “Interactions with coworkers outside of

17

work are covered by the same policies as interactions at work. So, for example, current Googlers

18

interacting with other current Googlers on [a private, external mailing list with several current and

19

former employees on it].”

20

121.

The manager’s threats were reported to Google HR, and Google HR replied that the

21

manager had “crossed the line” with his comments. However, Google never made the manager retract

22

his threats or apologize for his sabotage attempts.

23

122.

In August of 2017, the same manager posted threats of litigation and termination

24

directed against unnamed employees who spoke to outside bloggers in support of Damore and his

25

memo. Once again, Google did nothing.
Google Even Attempted to Stifle Conservative Parenting Styles

26
27

123.

Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with

28

26
Complaint

 1

alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality3, for the purpose of

2

discussing sexual topics. The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal

3

forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy.
124.

4
5

conservative and traditional parenting techniques were unwelcome at Google.
125.

6
7

In March of 2017, Google HR strongly suggested to a Google employee that

Google HR brought up the following post that the employee made in response to a

Google thread in which someone specifically requested conservative parenting advice:

8

“If I had a child, I would teach him/her traditional gender roles and patriarchy
from a very young age. That’s the hardest thing to fix later, and our degenerate
society constantly pushes the wrong message.”

9
10
11

126.

Google HR stated, “We did not find that this post, on its face, violated any of Google’s

12

policies, but your choice of words could suggest that you were advocating for a system in which men

13

work outside the home and women do not, or that you were advocating for rigid adherence to gender

14

identity at birth. We trust that neither is what you intended to say. We are providing you with this

15

feedback so that you can better understand how some Googlers interpreted your statements, and so

16

that you are better equipped to ensure that Google is a place in which all Googlers are able to reach

17

their full potential.” In other words, Google scolded the Google Employee for, among other things,

18

believing that gender identity is set at birth biologically—a position held by the vast majority of the

19

world’s populace that Google professes to serve.

20

127.

These examples were just a few instances of Google bending over backwards to support

21

liberal views while punishing conservative views. Google also placed Caucasian males in a lower

22

standing than women and underrepresented minorities. In May of 2017, one Google Employee

23

discovered and reported several offensive postings attacking Trump supporters and Caucasian males.

24

In June of 2017, HR responded: “Thanks for your time the other day and sharing your response. We

25

have reviewed the threads that you sent us and do not find them to be attacking traditionally

26

conservative views, but more extreme, “alt-right” views that seem to teeter into discrimination and

27

3

28

For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as “a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin” and “an
expansive ornate building” presented a talk entitled “Living as a Plural Being” at an internal company
event.
27
Complaint

 1

possibly incite violence against certain groups of people.” Upon information and belief, Google never

2

made any such comments regarding posts supporting the violent vigilante organization, Antifa, or

3

other extreme leftist/anarchist organizations. In fact, a large number of Googlers have set their

4

corporate profile pictures to Antifa insignias, as seen in the image below.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Google Publicly Endorsed Blacklists

19
20

128.

On or around August 2015, Adam Fletcher (“Fletcher”), a L6 SRE Manager at Google,

21

Jake McGuire (“McGuire”), a L7 SRE Manager at Google, and Nori Heikkinen (Heikkinen”), a L6

22

SRE Manager at Google all publicly endorsed blacklisting conservatives and actively preventing them

23

from seeking employment opportunities at Google.

24

129.

Fletcher stated in reference to conservatives, who he categorized as “hostile voices,” “I

25

will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically

26

excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product

27

is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.”

28

28
Complaint

 1
2

130.

McGuire and Heikkinen responded to Fletcher’s comment in agreement and came to

his defense, needling a Republican employee who raised concerns about the blacklists.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

29
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

131.

Google’s management-sanctioned blacklists were directed at specific Google

employees who tactfully expressed conservative viewpoints in politically-charged debates. In one
case, Jay Gengelbach, a L6 SWE Manager, publicly bragged about blacklisting an intern for failing to
change his conservative views.

30
Complaint

 1
2

132.

Other employees supported that decision, and one even stated to “[t]hrow that bad

apple away with no regrets.” They were referring to a human being.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

31
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

133.

Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), a L7 SWE Manager, proposed creating an online

10

companywide blacklist of political conservatives inside Google. She was kind enough to suggest to her

11

readership that they might deserve “something resembling a trial” before being added.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

32
Complaint

 1
2

134.

On August 7, 2015, another manager, Collin Winter, posted threats directed at a Google

3

employee as a result of raising concerns of harassment and discrimination to Urs Holzle. Winter

4

stated: “I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on

5

how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.”

6

135.

Also on August 7, 2015, another manager, Paul Cowan, reshared Collin Winter’s threat

7

to express his agreement with it and to indicate that he had also blacklisted Google employees with

8

perceived conservative views. Cowan stated: “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion,

9

about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m

10

perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box… Yes, I maintain (mentally,

11

and not (yet) publicly) [a blacklist]. If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to

12

get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit.”

13

136.

The primary purpose of these blacklists and suggested blacklists was to encourage and

14

coordinate the sabotage of promotions, performance reviews, and employment opportunities for those

15

with conservative viewpoints.

16

137.

On August 14, 2015, a small group of employees submitted a complaint to the Senior

17

Vice President of Google HR, Laszlo Bock (“Bock”) and Senior Vice President of Legal David

18

Drummond (“Drummond”) regarding the blacklisting of conservatives at Google.

19

138.

The group complained that there was an alarming number of individuals calling for

20

generic firings “if they express[ed] certain opinions on sociopolitical subjects.” The email further

21

claimed that this type of suppression “stifles debate and prevents the free exchange of ideas from

22

happening.”

23

139.

The email went on to complain about several individuals who had also openly

24

proclaimed that they kept blacklists of Googlers they refused to work with on the basis of their

25

political views.

26

140.

As evidenced by the fact that the blacklisting posts remain live on Google’s internal

27

corporate network, it is clear that Google took no action to prevent blacklisting. Google seems to

28

ignore most cases, and occasionally “coach” the worst offenders. However, Google will not openly

33
Complaint

 1

come out against the practice; instead, it relies on crowdsourced harassment and “pecking” to enforce

2

social norms (including politics) that it feels it cannot write directly into its policies.

3

Google Provides Internal Tools to Facilitate Blacklisting
141.

4

Google’s internal company systems allowed employees and managers to maintain a

5

“block list” of other employees with whom they did not wish to interact. For example, if A adds B to

6

her block list, B is not able to look A up in the company directory, communicate with A through the

7

internal instant messaging system, view A’s contact information or management chain, or see A’s

8

posts on internal social media. A and B would not be able to work together constructively on an

9

engineering project if either person blocked the other.

10

142.

It is common knowledge within Google that employees were habitually added to block

11

lists for expressing conservative political views. In these comments, employees and managers

12

discussed using block lists to sabotage other Googlers’ job transfers onto their teams.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///
///

34
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

143.

When an employee was blocked by a manager in another department in retaliation for

reporting misconduct, Google HR defended the practice of blacklisting co-workers, stating: “Thanks
for sharing this. Co-workers are allowed to control who can access their social media accounts (like
G+ and hangouts). Unless your inability to access John’s social media accounts is negatively
impacting your ability to do your job, we don’t find any information to suggest that John is retaliating
against you in violation of policy.”
35
Complaint

 1

144.

On a separate occasion, another Googler posted: “Another day, another entry on a

2

blacklist I wish wasn’t necessary to keep.” This was reported to Google HR. Google HR responded

3

that the employee “was just expressing his own personal opinion on who he likes working with,

4

[therefore] we did not find his comments to violate Google policy.”

5

145.

At a “TGIF” all-hands meeting on October 26, 2017, an employee directly asked

6

executives about the appropriateness of employees keeping political blacklists. Kent Walker, the

7

Senior Vice President of Legal, dodged the question rather than repudiating the practice of

8

blacklisting.

9

146.

On September 8, 2017, a group of conservative employees met with Paul Manwell,

10

Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s Chief of Staff, to raise concerns about the ongoing problem of politically

11

motivated blacklisting, bullying, and discrimination at Google. This meeting was a direct response to

12

the company’s handling of the Damore situation.

13

147.

The conservative employees shared their own experiences with discrimination and

14

asked the management for three major reforms. First, they asked for clarity around communication

15

policies, recommending that Google publish a clearer statement on what is acceptable and

16

unacceptable employee communication, and that any and all complaints about communication be

17

adjudicated through “a documented, fair, transparent, and appealable process.” In the meeting, the

18

employees pointed out that company leadership was sending mixed messages on whether it was even

19

permissible to criticize diversity policies. Second, the employees requested protection from retaliation,

20

asking the leadership to make a public statement that conservatives and supporters of Damore would

21

not be punished in any way for their political stances. Third, the conservative employees asked the

22

company to make it clear that the hostile language and veiled threats directed at Damore and his

23

supporters were unacceptable, and in the interest of making Google a healthier environment for

24

employees of all political stripes, the managers and VPs who made such statements should retract

25

them. On information and belief, none of these reforms ever took place.

26

148.

In or around October 2017, a number of diversity activists at Google indicated that they

27

had met with VPs Danielle Brown and Eileen Naughton in order to ensure that they would be able to

28

continue blacklisting and targeting employees with whom they had political disagreements. On

36
Complaint

 1

October 22, 2017, a conservative employee asked HR to help put him in contact with company

2

leadership to discuss the issue of targeted political harassment. This request was acknowledged by

3

Employee Relations on October 31, 2017. On December 22, 2017, Employee Relations indicated to

4

the employee that they would not be following up on his concerns about the systemic problems he

5

raised, and they considered the matter closed.
Google Maintains Secret Blacklists of Conservative Authors

6
7

149.

On August 26, 2016, Curtis Yarvin, a well-known conservative blogger who has

8

reportedly advised Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, and other members of the Trump administration, visited

9

the Google office to have lunch with an employee. This triggered a silent alarm, alerting security

10

personnel to escort him off the premises.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

150.

It was later discovered that other influential conservative personalities, including Alex

Jones and Theodore Beale, are also on the same blacklist.
151.

On or about September 15, 2016, a Google employee asked HR if the writers could be

24

removed from the blacklist. HR refused to help with the request, and instead, reconfigured the internal

25

system so that it was no longer possible to see who was on the blacklist.

26
27
28

Google Allowed Employees to Intimidate Conservatives with Threats of Termination
152.

In the midst of any heated political discussion at Google, it has become commonplace

to see calls for conservatives to be fired or “encouraged to work elsewhere” for “cultural fit” reasons.

37
Complaint

 1

Googlers are extremely proud of the fact that the company has created a “shared culture of shared

2

beliefs” and openly discriminates against job applicants who do not share the same political ideology.

3
4

153.

One Google employee, referring to two conservative Googlers who criticized a feminist

blog post in July-August 2015 stated, “maybe we should just try laying off those people. Please.”

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

154.

Other Google employees also suggested terminating employees with conservative

27

values that did not comport with their own. One even suggested firing an employee twice simply to get

28

the point across—conservatives were not welcome at Google.

38
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

155.

Many Google employees resorted to name-calling, and one called conservative Google

employees that reported the discrimination they faced to Google HR “poisonous assholes.” The

10

employee stated that Google knew who the “assholes” were, and that they could be easily replaced.

11

Several conservative employees reported this to Google HR, but Google HR replied that this hateful

12

rhetoric was not a policy violation.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Google Enabled Discrimination against Caucasian Males

24
25
26
27
28

156.

Liz Fong-Jones (“Fong-Jones”), an L5 SRE Manager at Google, repeatedly

discriminated against Caucasian males.
157.

On April 4, 2015, a Caucasian male posted a comment about a “Diversity Town Hall”

meeting in which the management stated that affirmative action was impractical from a legal

39
Complaint

 1

standpoint. Fong-Jones responded that she “could care less about being unfair to white men. You

2

already have all the advantages in the world.”

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

40
Complaint

 1
2

158.

Dozens of other employees joined the conversation to insult and belittle the Caucasian

3

male, characterizing his concerns about workplace discrimination as “stupid goddamn devil’s advocate

4

bullshit.” This received hundreds of “upvotes” from other Googlers showing their approval.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

159.

The Caucasian male employee’s own manager replied to chastise him and to promise

that he would be punished for his apostasy.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

41
Complaint

 1
2

160.

In a follow-up conversation, Fong-Jones doubled-down on her position, stating that the

“benefit to everyone as a whole” justifies discrimination against white men.

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

161.

When Fong-Jones was reported to Google HR, Google’s initial reaction was to state

11

that since Fong-Jones was responding “to some pretty insensitive comments from other colleagues and

12

reacting to an environment that we know have been less than friendly to women and minorities at

13

times,” that her behavior was taken out of context and excused her comments. Google HR then stated

14

that “some empathy could be valuable as you reflect on the conversations.”

15
16
17
18
19

162.

It was only after the matter continued to escalate that Google HR finally took “action,”

which they claimed ranged from “coaching to warnings.”
163.

Chris Busselle (“Busselle”), a Manager in the Search organization, has frequently urged

other Googlers to engage in discriminatory practices to improve diversity.
164.

On April 9, 2017, Busselle posted a message suggesting that employees should

20

leverage Google’s influence to have “cheesy white males” removed from speaker lineups at

21

conferences.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

42
Complaint

 1

165.

Busselle’s anti-white-male decree was reported to HR on April 21, 2017. On May 4,

2

2017, HR replied and said: “Regarding your concern about Chris Busselle’s G+ post, we have

3

reviewed and do not find that it violates our policies. You may of course feel free to provide him

4

feedback about his post.”

5
6
7
8

Google Was Unable to Respond to Logical Arguments
166.

On November 15, 2015, a Google employee complained to Google HR regarding a

highly offensive post from an employee in the Developer Product Group. The post stated:

10

“If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to
come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how
enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with
fuck­all as a result!” (emphasis added.)

11

167.

9

The Google employee stated that this statement was a violation of the Google Code of

12

Conduct, and was creating a hostile workplace environment as it targeted Caucasians, males, and

13

individuals over the age of 40.

14

168.

Google HR responded: “Given the context of the post and that [the employee’s] main

15

point is to highlight that it is helpful to have diverse perspectives, it doesn’t appear that the post to

16

[sic] violates our policies.”

17

169.

Perplexed, the Google employee responded to Google HR by replacing the term “40-

18

something white men” with “women” and asked how that was not a breach of conduct. Google failed

19

to respond.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

43
Complaint

 1

170.

Google’s lack of response and engagement evidenced Google’s biases and its inability

2

to even recognize them when someone pointed them out. As demonstrated above, Google allowed

3

individuals to insult and discriminate against political conservatives, Caucasians, and males with

4

impunity.

5

171.

A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against

6

Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the

7

promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted

8

to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were

9

white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!” Further in the thread, Burchett highlights the

10

divisiveness of her original post by noting that it was not fair even to talk about women when “POC”

11

or “people of color” weren’t getting enough airtime in the discussion.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

44
Complaint

 1

172.

Upon information and belief, Burchett continued to make hiring and promoting

2

decisions at Google and was not reprimanded by Google, even though Burchett’s posts were reported

3

to Google HR and to the Senior Vice President of Legal in a formal complaint.

4

173.

These examples make it clear that 1) Google discriminates against conservatives,

5

Caucasians, and males and 2) that Google has fostered an environment where this kind of

6

mistreatment is not only allowed, commonplace, accepted—but is, in fact, encouraged, enabled, and

7

rewarded.
Google’s “Diversity” Policies Impede Internal Mobility and New Hires

8
9

174.

Another Google employee, who first began working for Google over a decade ago as a

10

Software Engineer has suffered similar discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for his perceived

11

conservative views, his gender, and his Caucasian race.

12

175.

From 2008 till 2016, the Google employee was able to move from one team to another

13

with ease after a project was cancelled or completed, and during this eight-year time period, he

14

transferred between approximately five different teams.

15

176.

Although the Google employee moved from team to team at Google, the Google

16

employee consistently received at least “Meets Expectations” after his promotion in 2008 until 2015,

17

with one “Needs Improvement” rating in 2015—a month after taking bereavement leave to mourn the

18

death of his grandmother.

19

177.

When the Google employee learned that a project he was working on was moving to

20

another country, he began looking for a new team to join as he had done numerous times in the past.

21

However, this time, it was much more difficult.

22

178.

The Google employee reached out to more than 10 different hiring managers, but few

23

seemed interested in having him join their team, and only one had extended a firm offer by the end of

24

January 2017.

25

179.

Upon information and belief, the Google employee was not selected due to the fact that

26

the hiring managers were looking solely for “diverse” individuals, and as a Caucasian male, the

27

Google employee did not help fill their mandatory (and illegal) quotas. The Google employee was

28

otherwise completely qualified for the positions for which he applied. This discrimination was

45
Complaint

 1

confirmed a few days later when on February 2, 2017, the Google employee’s former director initiated

2

a “Diversity Team Kickoff” with the intent to freeze headcount so that teams could find diversity

3

candidates to help fill the empty roles. Google was specifically looking for women and non-Caucasian

4

individuals to fill these roles.

5

180.

In a further display of disregard for the law, Charles Mendis (“Mendis”), an

6

Engineering Director at Google, informed his team that he was “freezing [headcount]” so that he could

7

reserve future open positions for diverse candidates. Mendis stated, “For each position we have open

8

work on getting multiple candidates including a diversity candidate.” He then went on to state, “Often

9

the first qualified candidate is not a diversity candidate, waiting to have a few qualified candidates and

10
11
12
13

being patient is important.”
181.

This discrimination against Caucasians and males was not only allowed at Google, but

was supported, and actively encouraged.
182.

Facing the threat of termination unless he met a looming March, 2017 transfer deadline

14

imposed by HR, the Google employee was finally able to secure a position with the a team in the Ads

15

and Commerce Product Area.

16

183.

The team was a new area for the Google employee, but his supervisor praised his work

17

and his ability to learn the new field so quickly. On or around April, 2017, a few months after he

18

started working with his new team, the Google employee’s reviewing manager stated in a written

19

performance review, “[The Google employee] has ramped up fast on ML, a new area for him,” and his

20

manager further told the Google employee that he was on track to receive either an Exceeds or

21

Strongly Exceeds Expectations rating in the next performance cycle.

22

184.

The Google employee was further told during his weekly one-on-one meetings with his

23

manager in July, 2017 that he was doing fine work. The Google employee’s manager had no

24

complaints or issues to discuss with him.

25

185.

Although the Google employee was coming along nicely in his new team, he did not

26

feel that it was a good fit due to the lack of coding involved and was frustrated with the pace of

27

bureaucracy on the team. Therefore, the Google employee reached out to Stephen Gillet, (“Gillet”) of

28

46
Complaint

 1

the Google X team, whom he had previously corresponded with back when the Google employee was

2

leaving one of his previous teams.

3

186.

Gillet was receptive to the idea of re-engaging with the Google employee for the

4

purposes of transferring him over, and connected him to a few other members of the team, including

5

Will Robinson (“Robinson”), the hiring manager of Google X.

6

187.

While the Google employee was in the middle of discussing the transfer, Damore’s

7

memo began going viral. On August 4, 2017, the Google employee commented in support of

8

Damore’s memo and its defense of the conservative ideology, and stated:

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

“Thank you for raising this important issue James. All too often I believe this
subject is portrayed very one-sidedly here at Google, and with real consequences
for those who dare to question the dominant narrative.”
The Google employee then went on vacation after that until approximately August 15, 2017.
188.

While the Google employee was out of the office, his director sent an organization-

wide email encouraging all employees to attend “Ads Diversity and Inclusion Week”, while
simultaneously condemning Damore’s memo, stating that “misogyny and racism are not ‘political
views.’”

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

47
Complaint

 1

189.

On or around September 6, 2017, less than one week before managers begin meeting to

2

determine calibration ratings, the Google employee suddenly and suspiciously received verbal

3

feedback from his manager that he was in danger of not meeting expectations. On the next day,

4

Robinson emailed the Google employee that the “[next] (and near-final) step in the process on our side

5

would be a chat with your current manager. This is a normal piece of due diligence that I do for all

6

transfers, and it’s usually the last step before we make a formal transfer offer.”

7

190.

On September 12, 2017, the Google employee informed his reviewing manager of his

8

desire to join the Google X team. His reviewing manager claimed to be supportive of the transfer, even

9

offering to expedite it to ensure it would go through before performance reviews are finalized.

10

191.

On September 19, 2017, during the weekly one-on-one meetings, his reviewing

11

manager began discussing the Google employee’s future with the team, and told the Google employee

12

that he needs to deliver a sizeable project in the final quarter of the year with “no room for failure.”

13

The Google employee understood this statement to mean that his performance review and his transfer

14

were now in jeopardy.

15

192.

A few days later, on September 22, 2017, the Google employee received an email from

16

Robinson titled “Bad News.” The email went on to state that “[a]fter a lot of thought and discussion,

17

I’ve come to the conclusion that the right fit isn’t there for you and our team at this time.”

18

193.

Robinson’s sudden and cryptic turnaround, along with the Google employee’s

19

reviewing manager’s negative verbal feedback, just a few weeks after the Google employee’s

20

comment of support in Damore’s memo, made it clear that the transfer was subverted by the Google

21

employee’s management chain at Google due to his political views.

22

194.

On or about October 12, 2017, the Google employee confronted his reviewing manager

23

during their one-on-one meeting about his call with Robinson, but his reviewing manager naturally

24

denied any wrongdoing and stated that he only “had a 15-minute conversation regarding [the Google

25

employee’s] strengths and weaknesses.”

26

195.

On or about October 25, 2017, two weeks after that weekly meeting, the Google

27

employee received a “Needs Improvement” rating. This occurred despite the fact that his reviewing

28

manager had been assuring the Google employee every week since September 19, 2017, that he had

48
Complaint

 1

been meeting expectations. The Google employee also argued that the rating was unfair because he

2

only learned of his alleged “poor performance” on September 6, 2017.

3

196.

Because this “Needs Improvement” rating was his second one (during his ten-year

4

tenure at Google), the Google employee was also automatically placed on a Performance Improvement

5

Plan (“PIP”). This was the first time the Google employee had received any written feedback since

6

joining his new team that his performance was in need of improvement.

7

197.

The Google employee had worked at Google for nearly a decade without incident, and

8

as soon as Googlers learned he supported conservative ideologies, he lost his transfer to a different

9

team, received a poor performance rating, and was placed on a PIP.

10

198.

Plaintiffs and class members may point to innumerable other examples of illegal and

11

discriminatory conduct at Google. For the sake of relative brevity, only a handful of examples have

12

been described in this Complaint. Attached as “Exhibit B” to the Complaint is a compilation of posts

13

and “memes” from Google’s internal message boards designed for employee use. All 80,000+ Google

14

employees have access to an internal meme generator site that is described as "a space for sharing

15

internal news, announcements, passive-aggressive statements, awesomeness, witty remarks, Reddit

16

OC and cynical-in-a-good-way experiences on Google and outside." Employees often use the

17

memegen tool to post offhand comments and observations for others to see; there is a voting

18

mechanism that puts the most popular entries on the top of the page. Other entries on Exhibit B are

19

from widespread Google internal communications available to employees.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

20
21

199.

Plaintiffs bring their first, second, third, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action

22

pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 on behalf of themselves and on behalf of

23

the following proposed Class and Subclasses, each of which Plaintiffs are members:

24
25
26
27
28

Global Class: All employees of Google discriminated against by Google in
California due to their perceived conservative views, their race, and/or their
gender at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing
of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Class”).
Political Subclass: All employees of Google discriminated against due to their
perceived conservative views by Google in California at any time during the time
period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date
49
Complaint

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

of trial in this action (“Political Subclass”).
Gender Subclass: All employees of Google discriminated against by Google in
California for being males at any time during the time period beginning one year
prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action
(“Gender Subclass”).
Race Subclass: All employees of Google discriminated against by Google in
California for being Caucasian at any time during the time period beginning one
year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action
(“Race Subclass”) (Political Subclass, Gender Subclass, and Race Subclass,
collectively referred to as “Subclasses”).

8
9

Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definitions of Class and Subclasses following discovery.
200.

Excluded from the Class and Subclasses is anyone employed by counsel in this action,

10
and any judge to whom this action is assigned and his or her immediate family members.
11
201.

This action is brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action under Code

12
of Civil Procedure section 382, because each Class and Subclass is a well-defined community of
13
interest in the litigation, and each proposed Class and Subclass is easily ascertainable. There also
14
exists a sufficiently numerous classes or subclasses, and substantial benefits from certification that
15
render proceeding as Classes or Subclasses, superior to joinder, filing individually, or other
16
alternatives.
17
202.

Numerosity and Ascertainability: The size of the Class and Subclasses makes a class

18
action both necessary and efficient. Upon information and belief, Google employee approximately
19
80,000 employees located across California. Members of the Class and Subclasses are ascertainable
20
through Google’s records, but are so numerous that joinder of all individual Class and Subclass
21
members would be impractical.
22
203.

Predominant Common Questions of Law and Fact: Common questions of law and fact

23
affecting the rights of all Class and Subclass members predominate over individualized issues. These
24
common questions include, but are not limited to:
25
a.

whether Google has a systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against

26
employees due to their perceived conservative political views;
27
28

50
Complaint

 1

b.

employees due to their gender;

2
3

c.

whether Google has a systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against
employees due to their race;

4
5

whether Google has a systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against

d.

whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees

6

due to their perceived conservative political views violates California Labor Code

7

section 1101 and 1102 et seq.;

8

e.

due to their gender violates the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

9
10

f.

11
12

g.

whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees
due to their perceived conservative political views was willful;

h.

15
16

whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees
due to their race violates the Fair Employment and Housing Act;

13
14

whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees

whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees
due to their gender was willful;

i.

whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees
due to their race was willful;

17
18

j.

whether Google’s policies or practices violate Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.;

19

k.

whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and/or
attorneys’ fees for the Class and/or Subclasses are warranted.

20
21

204.

Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class and Subclasses as a

22

whole because Plaintiffs are employees of Google in California during the respective Class Periods,

23

who were discriminated against for their perceived conservative views, their gender, and/or their race.

24

205.

Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the

25

interests of the Class and Subclasses because their individual interests are consistent with, and not

26

opposed to, the interests of the Class and Subclasses, and because Plaintiffs have selected counsel

27

who have the requisite resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and are

28

experienced labor and employment attorneys who have successfully litigated other cases involving

51
Complaint

 1
2

similar issues and have litigated class actions.
206.

Superiority of Class Mechanism. Class certification is appropriate because common

3

questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members.

4

Google’s liability in this case is based on uniform company policies and procedures. The amount

5

owed to each individual Class Member is small in relation to the expense and burden of individual

6

litigation to recover that amount. The prosecution of separate actions against Google by individual

7

Class Members could create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which could establish

8

incompatible standards of conduct for Google. A class action is superior to other available methods

9

for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy set forth herein.

10
LEGAL CLAIMS

11
12
13

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1101
(By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Political Subclass Against all Defendants)

14

207.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

15

208.

Employers may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in

16
17
18
19

political activities or the exercise of any rights afforded him. California Labor Code section 1101
prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids
or controls, or tends to control, their employees’ political activities.
209.

California Labor Code section 1105 states, “Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the

20
injured employee from recovering damages from his employer for injury suffered through a violation
21
22
23
24
25
26

of this chapter.”
210.

Upon violation of this section preventing employers from controlling political activities

of employees, employees have a right of action for damages for breach of an employment contract.
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481.
211.

Plaintiffs, and all members in the Political Subclass, engaged in protected political

27

activity. Plaintiffs, and the Political Subclass members, expressed their political viewpoints, and as a

28

result were discriminated against throughout the respective Class Periods by Google, which does not

52
Complaint

 1
2

share their political views.
212.

As a direct result of the aforesaid violations of law, as well as the job retaliation set

3

forth herein, Plaintiffs and Political Subclass have sustained, and will continue to sustain for a period

4

of time in the future, compensatory and general damages in an amount according to proof at the trial

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

of this action.
213.

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional

retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and
injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities
in an amount to be determined at trial.
214.

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

Plaintiffs and the Political Subclass are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an
amount to be determined at trial.
215.

Because this claim arising under California state law is a matter of public concern, and

affects the public at large, Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses pray for attorney’s fees and

15
16
17
18
19

expenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102
(By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Political Subclass Against all Defendants)
216.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

217.

California Labor Code section 1102 makes it illegal for an employer to threaten

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

employees with discharge as a means of coercing or influencing employees’ political activities.
218.

California Labor Code section 1105 states, “Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the

injured employee from recovering damages from his employer for injury suffered through a violation
of this chapter.”
219.

Upon violation of this section preventing employers from controlling political activities

of employees, employees have a right of action for damages for breach of an employment contract.
Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481.

28

53
Complaint

 1

220.

Plaintiffs and the Political Subclass engaged in protected political activity. Plaintiffs,

2

and the Political Subclass members, expressed their political viewpoints, and as a result were

3

threatened and coerced throughout the respective Class Period by Google, who does not share their

4

political views.

5

221.

As a direct result of the aforesaid violations of law, as well as the job retaliation set

6

forth herein, Plaintiffs, and the Political Subclass, have sustained, and will continue to sustain for a

7

period of time in the future, compensatory and general damages in an amount according to proof at the

8

trial of this action.

9

222.

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional

10

retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and

11

injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities

12

in an amount to be determined at trial.

13

223.

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

14

Plaintiffs and the Political Subclass are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an

15

amount to be determined at trial.

16

224.

Because this claim arising under California state law is a matter of public concern, and

17

affects the public at large, Plaintiffs, and the Class and Subclasses, pray for attorney’s fees and

18

expenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
Workplace Discrimination Due to Gender and/or Race in Violation of FEHA
(By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Gender and Race Subclasses
Against all Defendants)

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

225.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

226.

At all relevant times, Google was an employer covered by the Fair Employment and

Housing Act (“FEHA”), and Plaintiffs and the Gender and Race Subclasses were covered employees.
227.

Google violated FEHA when they discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Gender and

Race Subclass members because of their gender and/or race by, among other things, taking into
account gender and/or race when considering promotions, failing to protect employees from negative
comments made about Caucasian men as they protected members of other protected classes, and
ignoring formal requests for redress from Google managers and the Human Resources department.
54
Complaint

 1

228.

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional gender

2

and/or race discrimination, Plaintiffs, and the member of the Gender and Race Subclasses, have

3

suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and injury, stress, humiliation,

4

anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount to be

5

determined at trial.

6

229.

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

7

Plaintiffs, and Gender and Race Subclass members, are therefore entitled to an award of punitive

8

damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

9

230.

FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a

10

prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are

11

incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

12

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Workplace Harassment in Violation of FEHA
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

13
14
15

231.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

16

232.

The FEHA provides that it is unlawful for an employer to harass an employee because

17
18
19
20

of, inter alia, the employee’s gender and/or race.
233.

Furthermore, it is unlawful to harass an employ for informing internal management

about possible violations of the law.
234.

Google constantly treated Plaintiffs in a discriminatory and harassing fashion after

21

they reported labor code and California Civil code violations, thus creating a hostile work

22

environment.

23

235.

The harassment was based on Plaintiffs’ gender and/or race, and their constant

24

reminders to Google to not break the law by taking into account protected categories, and giving

25

underrepresented minorities and women special preferences when making hiring or promotion

26

decisions. Any discussions to the contrary were ignored.

27
28

236.

Google’s conduct was so severe and pervasive that it altered Plaintiffs’ conditions of

employment.

55
Complaint

 1

237.

Google’s treatment of Plaintiffs caused them to consider the work environment to be

2

hostile and/or abusive, and a reasonable person in their circumstances would have similarly

3

considered the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive.
238.

4
5

Plaintiffs made it clear to Google that such harassment was unwelcome by reporting it

to Google HR directly multiple times. However, Google failed to act.

6

239.

Google’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm.

7

240.

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional

8

harassment, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and

9

injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities

10

in an amount to be determined at trial.

11

241.

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

12

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at

13

trial.

14

242.

FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a

15

prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are

16

incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

17

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b).
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

18
19
20

243.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

21

244.

California Government Code § 12940(h) provides that it is unlawful for any employer

22

or person to discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden

23

under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940, et seq.

24

245.

Plaintiffs opposed Google’s unlawful hiring and promoting practices in violation of

25

California Government Code § 12940 et seq. by complaining to their supervisors and Google HR on

26

several occasions.

27

246.

28

Specially, Plaintiffs reported to Google numerous occasions of hostile comments

made by coworkers regarding the Plaintiffs’ gender and/or race.

56
Complaint

 1
2

247.

Plaintiffs further complained regarding the unlawful hiring and promoting practices

taking place at Google.

3

248.

In retaliation for objecting to such unlawful conduct in violation of FEHA, Google

4

took adverse employment action against Plaintiffs by issuing them verbal and written warnings, and

5

by providing them with decreased performance reviews.
249.

6
7

activities, harassment, discrimination, and the subsequent retaliation.
250.

8
9

There is a causal link between Plaintiffs complaining to report Google’s illegal

In so retaliating against Plaintiffs, Google violated the Fair Employment and Housing

Act, among other statute and California common law.

10

251.

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional

11

retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and

12

injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities

13

in an amount to be determined at trial.
252.

14

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

15

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at

16

trial.

17

253.

FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a

18

prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are

19

incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

20

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b).
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny)
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

21
22
23

254.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

24

255.

Reprimanding employees in retaliation for resisting the violations of laws that secure

25
26

important public policies contravenes those policies, and gives rise to a common law action in tort.
256.

Plaintiffs were given verbal and written warnings after complaining about Google’s

27

unlawful hiring and promoting practices. Google’s violation of Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional

28

rights is inconsistent and hostile to the public’s interest.

57
Complaint

 1
2
3

257.

Google’s arguments for reprimanding Plaintiffs are pretextual in nature and calculated

to disguise the motivating basis of the adverse employment action to which Plaintiffs were subjected.
258.

As a direct and proximate result of Google willful, knowing and intentional retaliation,

4

Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and injury, stress,

5

humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount to

6

be determined at trial.

7
8
9

259.

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
260.

FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a

10

prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are incurring,

11

attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to reasonable

12

attorneys’ fees and costs.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

13
14
15

261.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

16

262.

California Labor Code § 1102.5 (a), in pertinent part, provides: “An employer, or any

17

person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or

18

policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement

19

agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to

20

investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or

21

testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee

22

has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or

23

a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether

24

disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.” Labor Code § 1102.5 subsections (c)

25

& (d) provides: An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate

26

against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or

27

federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. (d)

28

58
Complaint

 1

An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee

2

for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment.”

3

263.

As set forth above, Plaintiff opposed the wrongful and illegal practices by Google in

4

regards to Google’s practices of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation of individuals based on

5

their protected traits.

6

264.

7

Plaintiffs such as giving them poor performance reviews and denying them promotions.
265.

8
9

Thereafter, Google took a series of retaliatory adverse employment actions against

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional

retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and

10

injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities

11

in an amount to be determined at trial.

12
13
14
15

266.

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
(By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants)

16

267.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

17

268.

At all relevant times, Google was required, but failed, to take all reasonable steps

18

necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Government Code § 12940(k),

19

et seq.

20

269.

Upon information and belief, Google’s lack of any meaningful investigation into

21

Plaintiffs’ complaints of coworkers’ discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory behavior constituted

22

failure to prevent discrimination under the FEHA.

23

270.

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional failure

24

to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, Plaintiffs

25

have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and injury, stress,

26

humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount

27

to be determined at trial.

28

271.

These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

59
Complaint

 1

Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at

2

trial.

3

272.

FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a

4

prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are

5

incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

6

reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b).
NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Unfair Business Practices, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq.
(By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class Against All Defendants)

7
8
9

273.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

10

274.

Google’s violations of the California Labor Code, and California statutory and common

11

law, and other provisions, as described above in the causes of action listed in this Complaint, all

12

constitute unfair and unlawful business practices pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section

13

17200 et seq.

14

275.

The unlawful conduct described herein resulted in harm to Plaintiffs and the Class.

15

276.

Because the conduct alleged herein is ongoing, and there is no indication that either

16

Google will cease their unlawful conduct described herein, Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses

17

request that this Court enjoin Google from further violations of California’s laws.
TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
Declaratory Relief
(By All Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Subclasses against All Defendants)

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

277.

Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

278.

An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties relating to the legal

rights and duties of the parties as set forth above, for which Plaintiffs and the Subclasses desire a
declaration of rights and other relief available pursuant to the California Declaratory Judgment Act,
C.C.P. §1060 et seq.
279.

A declaratory judgment is necessary and proper in that Plaintiffs and the Subclasses

contend that Google has committed and continues to commit the violations set forth above and, on
information and belief, Google will deny that it has done so and/or will continue to commit such acts.

28

60
Complaint

 1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

3

respectfully pray for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows, in

4

amounts according to proof:

5
6
7

1.

For an order certifying this action as a class action;

2.

For an order appointing Plaintiffs as Class/Subclass representatives, and appointing

Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class/Subclass counsel;

8
3.

For judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants;

4.

For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Google from violating

9
10
11
12

California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 et seq. by discriminating, harassing, and retaliating
against individuals with conservative political views;

13

5.

For declaratory relief;

14

6.

For general, special and compensatory damages;

15

7.

For pre-judgment interest where allowed in an amount according to proof;

16

8.

For attorneys’ fees under applicable provisions of law, including but not limited to

17

FEHA, Cal. Labor Code 1102.5, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;

18

9.

For costs of suit incurred herein; and

19

10.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

20

Date: January 8, 2018

DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.

21
22

___________________________________
Harmeet K. Dhillon
Ravdeep S. Grewal
Gregory R. Michael

23
24
25

Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Damore, David
Gudeman, and all others similarly situated

26
27
28

61
Complaint

 1
DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

2
3
4

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury for all claims.
Date: January 8, 2018

DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.

5
___________________________________
Harmeet K. Dhillon
Ravdeep S. Grewal
Gregory R. Michael

6
7
8

Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Damore, David
Gudeman, and all others similarly situated

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

62
Complaint

 EXHIBITA

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber
How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion
go/pc-considered-harmful
James Damore - damore@
July 2017
Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded).
For longer form discussions see ​g/pc-harmful-discuss
Reply to public response and misrepresentation
TL;DR
Background
Google’s biases
Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech
Personality differences
Men’s higher drive for status
Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
The harm of Google’s biases
Why we’re blind
Suggestions

1
2
2
2
3
4
5
5
6
7
8

Reply to public response and misrepresentation
I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using
stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at
population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this,
then we can never truly solve the problem.
Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of
shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo
chamber.
Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many†personal messages
from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues
which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our
shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

 TL;DR
●
●
●

●
●

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety,
but shaming into silence is the antithesis of ​psychological safety​.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too
sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this
ideology.
○ Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
○ Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we
don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background​1
People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us.
Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots
and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document​2​. Google has several biases and honest
discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no
means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases
At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we
rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral
preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences,
media​, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices:

___________________________________________________________________________
This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak
about other offices or countries.
2 ​Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political
biases, I consider myself a ​classical liberal​ ​and strongly value ​individualism and reason​. I'd be very happy
to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.
1​

 Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in
this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and
untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing
(deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its
core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.
Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and
inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold
by shaming dissenters into silence. ​This silence removes any checks against encroaching
extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the
extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the
authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech​3
At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women
back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the
workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.
On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just
socially constructed because:
● They’re universal across human cultures
● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify
and act like males
● The underlying traits are highly heritable
● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective
Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these
differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men
and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why
we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences
are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything
about an individual given these population level distributions.
____________________________________________________________________________
3​

Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

 Personality differences
Women, on average, have more​:
●

Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally
also have a stronger interest in ​people rather than things​, relative to men (also
interpreted as ​empathizing vs. systemizing​).

○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social
or ​artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even
within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both
people and aesthetics.

●

●

Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher
agreeableness.
○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for
raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences
and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a
women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men
without support.
​Neuroticism​ ​(higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).
○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist
and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

 Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, ​research suggests​ ​that "greater
nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s
personality traits." Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate
dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap
that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to ​stop
assuming that gender gaps imply sexism​.

Men’s higher drive for status
We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we
see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not
be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.
Status is the primary metric that men are judged on​4​, pushing many men into these higher
paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men
into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and
dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and ​suffer 93% of
work-related deaths​.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap
Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I
outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's
representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in
many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them:
● Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things
○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming
and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how
people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive
ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get
female students into coding might be doing this).
● Women on average are more cooperative
○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may
be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do.
○ This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google.
Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't
necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like ​what's been done in
education​.
● Women on average are more prone to anxiety
____________________________________________________________________________
For heterosexual romantic relationships, ​men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty​.
Again, this has ​biological​ ​origins and is culturally universal.
4​

 ○

●

●

Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its
many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Women on average look for more work-life balance​ ​while men have a higher drive for
status on average
○ Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative
careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly
endorsing (as part of our culture) ​part time work​ ​though can keep more women in
tech.
The male gender role is currently inflexible
○ Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender
role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society,
allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although
probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine"
roles.

Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it
appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need
principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with
Google's diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra
hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may
have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep
in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally
acknowledged.

The harm of Google’s biases
I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However,
to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several
discriminatory practices:

● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race​5
●
●
●

A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can ​effectively lower the bar​ ​for “diversity” candidates by
decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same
scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)

● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal
discrimination​6
____________________________________________________________________________
5 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a
certain gender or race.
6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better
environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it
done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

 These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually
increase race and gender tensions​. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is
both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left
ideology​7 ​that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind
We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our
internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans
> environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to ​deny science
concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ​8 ​and sex differences). Thankfully,
climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the
overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (​about 95%​), which creates
enormous confirmation bias​, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social
constructionism and the gender wage gap​9​. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and
uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.
In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards
protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically
disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We
have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to
protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s
labelled as a ​misogynist and a whiner​10​. Nearly every difference between men and women is
interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are
often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google
money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.
____________________________________________________________________________
7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt
became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal
democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned
from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but
now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”
8 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of
aristocracy.
9 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for ​a variety of reasons​. For the
same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than
men and that salary represents how much the employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger),
we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.
10 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are
expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more
often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency. This
discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear
of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

 This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness​11​, which constrains
discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive ​PC-authoritarians​ ​that use violence and
shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that
we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the
same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions
I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that
we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of
those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that
don’t fit a certain ideology. ​I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender
roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another
member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
● De-moralize diversity.
○ As soon as we start to ​moralize an issue​, we stop thinking about it in terms of
costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly
punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
● Stop ​alienating conservatives​.
○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political
orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people
view things differently.
○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like
they need to ​stay in the closet to avoid open hostility​. We should empower those
with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business
because ​conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness​, which is required
for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature
company.
● Confront Google’s biases.
○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and
inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and
personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on
some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
____________________________________________________________________________
11 Political correctness is ​defined​ as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or
insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the
Left and a tool of authoritarians.

 ●

●

●

●

●

●

Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity
programs.
○ Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as
misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the
homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
○ There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs
which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo
chamber.
○ These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
○ I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government
accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize
illegal discrimination.
Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.
○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and
should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity.
○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our
products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
De-emphasize empathy.
○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I
strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do,
relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on
anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other ​irrational and
dangerous biases​. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about
the facts.
Prioritize intention.
○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases
our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our
tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian
policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to
psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging
unintentional transgressions.
○ Microaggression training ​incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with
violence​ ​and ​isn’t backed by evidence​.
Be open about the science of human nature.
○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to
discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition
which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

 ○

○

○

We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training
and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made
mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful,
but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and
the examples shown.
Spend more time on the ​many other types of biases​ ​besides stereotypes.
Stereotypes are much more ​accurate and responsive to new information​ ​than the
training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the
factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

 EXHIBIT 

Anti-conservative postings
1

 

think all of rrumn's supporters are claim
for linking an 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?This is not the time for "not all (whatever)?. The choice to be a Republican is the choice
to align yourself with a white supremacist, xenophobic regime. That wasn't true in 2015, but it's true now.

 

. Like, it's not popular to say, but one of two major American political party has adopted white supremacy
as a political platform. If you prefer, take that as a hypothetical: if a major American political party
announced that a subset of Americans were sub-human, is that something Google should permit
because we don't want to offend? Because we might lose money? Diversity is itself political for a subset
of people- should we skip that, too, because there are some American voters who object to it?

 

"legitimate world views' "Conservative Christianity" I admire your

tolerance, but pairing those two phrases still sounds like an
oxymoron to me. How is supporting a racist not racist? How is
saying "I'm going to elect a man who says he will immediately
deport 11 million Mexicans and cast a shroud of suspicion on all
Muslims" not racist?

Chuck Simmons Nov 9, 5 29 PM

 

 

Anti-conservative postings
2

Josh Beitelspacher googlecom -

Conservative values:

Women: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

White supremacists: We condemn in the strongest possible terms this
egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence, on many sides. On many

sides.

Immigrants: They're bringing drugs, they?re bringing crime, they're rapists. and
some, I assume, are good people.

If you're concerned about discussing conservative values at work, maybe you
should be. Maybe that's a feature. and not a bug.

I think we stand [0
alienate tewer conservatives

But sometimes this is int??i?l?e?d to
mean "tolerate that
harm or disentranehise minoritiesAnti-conservative postings
3

A majority of people who identify themselves as "Republicans" also
believe the Earth is 10,000 years old. Therefore by logical deduction, I
personally believe that a majority of self-identi?ed "Republicans" can
be placed in the bucket category of idiots (or uneducated) and am not
afraid to say it in a forum like Memegen. Now I'm not at all singling out
an individual "Republican" as an idiot. That would be a Jerk and not at
all appropriate in the workplace I know many Republican
voters who are smart, intelligent, kind, etc. They just generally
prioritize things differently than I do.

L.




I Likewise, in a forum like Memegen. I also feel it is OK to
categorize people who think the earth is ?at as idiots. I still
wouldn't do it in a normal workplace setting however. And I
would never do it to an individual.

. .VI
r?i. H. 



IIO Will were a
summation or a fetus

so nenunlicans would iillallil
treat you like a human being?

 

Anti-conservative postings
4

 Robert Lehmann - google.com 

Dear Lazyplus, dear Trump supporters,
I keep hearing people feeling unsafe about supporting Trump.

Please help me understand how - as a rational person, as a Googler - anyone
could possibly support Trump? I understand opposing Hillary Clinton, but
supporting a character that's been openly racist, sexist, and other horrible things
and incites other to be the same?

I don't think our basic value system of human rights is a negotiable issue.
Dignity is no tit-for-tat game. I can understand having a different political view
regarding government, regulations. or economy. I can seek rational discourse
with people denying climate change, doubting evolution. and maybe even
opposing democracy as a whole. There's just some things which are out of the
question, and inciting hate against parts of the populace is one of them.

If I may make a comparison not earning me the Godwin medal right there: If an
L9 sexually harasses someone we cannot go and argue, 'hey, but he's a great
engineer, and all of his reports are happy with him!" This lapse weighs stronger.
For us as a company, we have decided there a central set of values that are set
in stone, and which trump every other argument. The same should apply to our
society and its political leaders.

U1 

Restricted to google com - View activity

- Not a Trump supporter, but I read your argument as "If you do
support Trump, you cannot work here?. This is a dangerous

proposition to make.

 

Anti-conservative postings
5

Peonle ill Indiana are higots,
they call it bigotry?

4-1- 
What do Inevgalljta

- - 
BBIIQIBIIS Ireedom.

{lohnBoenner res:


.  
2 .
{95:6
d!

ecause nenlihlican



'11
a



6 
0' 
:34,

 

 

Anti-conservative postings
6

?what you and I see when we look

at history is so fundamentally different that have to
assume that you're deeply deceived or having some sort
of break from reality.

I see that the US prior to Clinton had a much more robust
welfare system. you seem to think that it can?t have been
more socialist.

I see Scandanavian capitalistisocialist states as making
their people signi?cantly happier. while maintaining a
quality of life signi?cantly higher than in the US. with a
lower total taxes fees replacement costs burden than
the US. Canada has chosen a balance point between
Norway/Sweden/Denmark and the US and is comparably
better than the US but not as effective as the
Scandanavian states. You see everything non-US as a
disaster.

What you think of as information is nonsense. What
you've been told are facts are dangerous lies. Please join
us in reality. Until then. I have to think of you as part of
the dangerous semantic noise spawned by Fox News
and AM talk radio.

 

Anti-conservative postings
7

Politics 
Donald Trump is not expanding the GOP

21 posts by 10 authors 

You mean white male voters with racist and/or sexist biases are not really Democratic voters and voted for Trump?!

 

Anti-conservative postings
8

Alon Altman Yesterday 10.31 PM +6

Google does have a culture problem-was part of that problem. He
did us a great service by reSigning.

Alon Altman Yesterday 10.51 PM +7

Regarding being inclusive of all people vs being inclusive of all ideas:

.will be welcome at Google again if he changed his mind and accepted the
company's values of inclusion.

Erica Baker could not stop being a black woman in order to feel included.
Kelly Ellis could not choose not to be harassed.

We want to be inclusrve of people not ideas. We are indeed intolerant of
ideas that are intolerant of others. We also believe that people can change
for the better hiring +Chris Poole). But we should not accept people
who are toxic and unwilling to change.

We can't be both diverse

and .
1 i 

When one candidate is anti-diversity

 

Anti-conservative postings
9

 

xale

Every time someone makes a meme like this, have to point out: political and religious opinions do not need the same

accommodations as gender and race *identities*. If you feel uncomfortable around people who do not share your
beliefs, you need to reevaluate them, not pressure others into assuaging you.

REPLY

 

 

 

Brian Swetland googlecom

I once again find myself severely disappointed with management's apparent
inability or (worse) lack of desire to provide a non-toxic environment.

Seriously, if I wanted to work somewhere where white nationalists, racists,
climate deniers. and misogynists were supported as viewpoints worthy of
protection, I'd find a job at Fox News or in the Trump Administration.

If management is having trouble deciding whether this should be a safe place
for Nazis or for anyone-who's-not-a-white-man, well, I really don't think this is a
hard question to answer.

+1 

Restricted to google.com

 

Anti-conservative postings
10

Neverunrleregitimate 
-  - - . 0 0
ol stunirlpeonle mtlarge grouns

.. 

Axel Wagner

Intolerance deserves no tolerance. It's a common fallacy to
think it does. I consider Trump to be actively dangerous to the
well-being of a signi?cant part of the world. I don't really care
about the US. they brought it on themselves. I care about the
rest of the world. that he intends - to varying degrees. ranging
from "pissing off? over "send troops? to ?commit war crimes" -
to declare war on).

I could care less about people being republican. But I won't
tolerate trump-voters.

 

Anti-conservative postings
11

. AnilDas  +1

- I actually agree with your meme, and consider the pitchforks
misguided when Googlers find out the company has donated to some
Republican candidate or group.

Anil Das .. +15 +1 
Modulo all this, let me state plainly that if you are a Trump supporter, all this
respect stuff is out the window, and you can

read ,r'xpius google 
uh to see why I feel strongly about that.

 

 

lndustryinfo 
Politics:)

98 posts by 47 authors 

Rachel Whetstone 1 

 

As someone who cannot vote in US elections (and who has just recently moved to the US). I am shocked
by the very partisan nature of the political debate in the US. I thought the UK was bad. but this feels way
more prejudiced and antagonistic than anything I am used to back home.

As I have said at TGIF on several occasions, I feel similarly about some of the internal debates we have
at Google around policy issues. It seems like we believe in free expression except when people disagree
with the majority view. These ?gures from CrodeAC (full disclosure -- this is my husband's start-up) give
an interesting perspective on majority opinion in the Valley. I have lost count of the times at Google. for
example, people tell me privately that they cannot admit their voting choice if they are Republican
because they fear how other Googlers will react. So I thought this opinion piece was fascinating and
really worth thinking about.

Rachel



 

 

 

 

Anti-conservative postings
12

How can Google better create an inclusive environment for Googlers supporting President-Elect Trump?

a 

That's a tough one. Being more than tolerant (by proactively creating an inclusive environment) with
people who are supporters of one of the most intolerant (read 'fascist') political ?gures in American
history is not an easy choice. In any case, this topic merits a serious discussion, so I will upvote it. even
though I personally disagree with the idea.

Ignite

I think that the first step there is to understand why they support Trump. Economics? Trust in a
businessman? Distrust of Hillary? Distrust of politicians? I am genuinely curious about their reasons.

To me. it is very hard to understand what reasons someone can have that override the facts that (l the
supports Trump and (2) Trump has said deplorable things about Muslims. Mexicans, disabled folks,
women, etc.

.v 


It works both ways. Trump supporters should also ask how better they should communicate and listen
the opposition opinion. Ignoring the fact that Trump has policies that are borderline discriminative makes
it hard for Trump supporters to be heard by groups that prioritize the human rights the most.

 

Anti-conservative postings
13

 . 7 ?a r? 
We all have Googler colleagues who supported Trump, but cannot admit it due to the tyranny of the internal

majority. What are we doing to foster dialogue, learn from our dissenting colleagues, and build a path forward?
How can we propose helping to unify the nation without our own house in order?

a

6 I think you might need to revisit some of the classes that Google gives us each year. It's important to

1? embrace diversity, not just because it's morally correct, but because it builds a better business. If we
have colleagues that support racism and do not support women's rights, learning from them is not a
goal. Well, okay, learning what's wrong with them so we can better figure out how to fix 

have a hard time understanding what reasons someone could have for supporting Trump that override
. the fact that (1) the supports Trump and (2) Trump has has said said hurtful and cruel things about
Muslims. Mexicans. disabled folks. women. etc.

I No. 21,4 112 

One theory about why all the polls and predictions were so wrong is because people supporting Trump were
afraid to express their opinions for fear of retaliation. Is there anything Google can do to help achieve a world
where nobody is afraid to voice their opinions

a 4.:

If their ?opinion' is racism, why do they deserve to have their voices amplified?

 

Anti-conservative postings
14

I had this same feedback.

I received emails from senior leaders in my management chain yesterday. all of which were saying how much 'hate' won. and how
disappointed they were with the 'nationalistic and fear-mongering'.

As a Republican at Googie. and a person who voted for Trump. I already knew I was in the minority. What I didn't foresee is the fact I would
have to come into work yesterday and hear my cube mates ridicule and mock people like myself that voted for Trump. and then have that
behavior reinforced by senior leaders who sent emails condoning that beratement of Republicans,

I understand that this is not the outcome many here wanted. How are we supposed to have an open dialog. and discuss c0mmon ground.
when all that seems to happen is hate and ridicule (on both sides!)

I don't want to live in an echo chamber. Many (all?) of my friends are Liberals. and I silently try to understand their points of view. and how

they differ from mine. I don't hate people who voted differently than me. all I ask is that the hate and vitriol be toned down. at least while
you're at work.

"liberal good/smart
conservative had/stunid"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IS one 0' 
biases and SlBl?BlellQS attloegle


I

And I've never seen it addressed anvwliere

 

Anti-conservative postings
15

. 
Dana Jansens google.com 2016 

Rather than starting a ?amewar on 

Some Googlers voted for Secretary Clinton, others voted for

Donald Trump for legitimate personal reasons. Please respect
each other's rights to choose, be tolerant, try to understand each
other, and put your faith in the rule of law.

I mean no disrespect, but statements like this come off rather condescending
IMO when rule of law has been killing blackfolks for generations and is now well
documented, and part of the platform of the man who was elected was that law
would be harder on blackfolk. This sort of statement smells strongly of privilege
that many people in the US do not have.

+1 9 15 2
Restricted to google.com - View activity

Hide 9 comments

Julia Tuttle +10
Yeah. I don't see why I should tolerate people putting my fellow
minority coworkers at even more risk.

 

Anti-conservative postings
16



x: :22:
Couldn?t "working behind the scenes" legitimize a fascist regime? Equal Protection (amend. XIV) applies to all
persons in America, not just citizens. lf even one Googler has been materially affected by last week's order,
don't we owe it to them to file or join and carry a case to the Supreme Court?
l: Tr?:

302&context=facpub



a

0 Just listened to this podcast today:


balances-and-business

For more 



We work behind the scenes with business-friendly Republicans who might disagree with us on
policy. We should not work behind the scenes with white supremacists like Steve Bannon.

+1000000

{1 Ti 1+ 

Google is secular and pretty liberal. I'm also pretty secular and pretty liberal, but I have coworkers who are
conservative or religious, and they've told me that they feel an overwhelming pressure to stay ?in the closet? so
to speak. Can you address this aspect of diversity and inclusion?

a:

9 Diversity doesn't obligate us to include people who cannot include others themselves.

27:"

 

Anti-conservative postings
17

 

 

mh-anon 
Whelp, guess It might be time for revolution
5 posts by 1 author if)

mh-anon 1?30 17



How do people cope with this? I've never been part of a military or war eff0rt before. I guess i can be useful as IT support or for hacking. but
my emotions keep swinging between despair and anger and I don't know how useful I'll be.

mh-anon 1 30'17

?x 

Get in touch with your friendly local antifa. Don't try to do this alone. There are people who have been ?ghting nee-Nazis for decades. They?re
nice people (generally). Get to know them.

If you don't know where to ?nd them. try an Occupy group. like Occupy Oakland (though not Occupy NYC. that one has been co-opted by
fascists) or just ?nd Black, Latina/Latino. or Muslim activists and ask how you can support them.

I won't say violence has no place. but if you are going to be doing anything risky. I can't overemphasize the important of networking with
people who've been thinking about scenarios like the one we're in for years. and building relationships with them. We are only powerful if we
organize.

mh-anon 1.30 17

Also try the IWW.
NOTE:

It is a given that there are people working at Google who have an interest in undermining radical resistance. Statistically, that's guaranteed.
Assume that people you can't trust are reading what you write at all times and that some of them might try to get you involved in something
violent in order to undermine your movement rather than to further an objective. Use and be aware of who your audience is. I'll just
leave it at that.

mh-anon 13117

(K 

If you're serious about resistance. you should read this: . Working at
google I'm sure you understand just how interconnected everything online is. and how easy it is to learn things about people based on their
activities online. It goes without saying that everything you do should be but also you need to be sure to keep eliminate all PM you
possibly can. Plus. since there are a lot of people mobilizing to resist and hence a lot of folks mobilizing to counter-resist. as :42 said. you
should assume a stance of distrust towards any person or group until you have signi?cant evidence that they can indeed be trusted with your
life.

mh-anon 1:31 17

(k 

And it should be pointed out that this list is not truly anonymous. The government could issue a subpoena to provide names on this list and
Google would have to comply.

 

vkou
February 1,2017,10:31 AM PST

But l'm just going to remind everyone that some of the people who work at Google
voted for him, and support him.

Unfortunately, as we've seen over the past two weeks, this puts them at odds with
basic human decency. If that's their political position, they have to live with it. If they
don't like people calling a fascist what he is, that's their problem.

 

 

Anti-conservative postings
18

?1 Jennifer Messerly googlecom

Reminder that sidetracking diversity efforts with complaints about "bias against
anti-diversity beliefs" is harmful, to precisely the minority groups we're trying to
make feel safe included.

If we're going to have any success in creating a safe environment for minorities
here, then we must reject anti-diversity beliefs/efforts.

If you need help letting go of those beliefs, there's a lot written inside the
company about our diversity programs. how they work, what they're about, why
they matter. There's also trainings to help: 

Jake McGuire +wac@qooqle.com well said. We

recognize people for improving the productivity of their
coworkers. We should also recognize people for reducing
the productivity of their coworkers through personal
unpleasantness. By ?ring them if necessary.

+7
Let me say it loud and clear. I believe?should absolutely be
fired because he has made multiple statements that have made women

(and men) uncomfortable, angry, and threatened.

This is not character assassination, it is highlighting bad behavior.

 

Anti-conservative postings
19

jaguHar
September 9, 2016, 12 19 PM PDT

This is the type of thing unsolicited feedback is made for. It wouldn't take much. Just,
?Please see the contents of this ticket and consider promotion candidate's behavior on it.
<Unk>?

September hope you re not serious.

September 10, 2316, 2 58 PM PDT

yeah, he is. this happens all the time here.

CS harveynickr?google com
Counter pornt It IS not to be a supporter of Donald Trump "and' to respect Googles actual diverSity, as regards either race,
gender or sexuality

Furthermore he has shown to be a liar time and time again

 

 

 

 

A nenulilican said something moro?ic

 

Anti-conservative postings
20

Anthony The only problem is that these
things are very hard to prove. and these disputes.
unfortunately, end up hurting the victim's career as well.

Google isn?t the government. Proof of wrongdoing is not
needed to ?re anyone (in the US, at least).

Given that. I sometimes wonder if the optimal strategy is
?re all those accused 100% of the time.

Consider two cases:
Case 1: The accused person did nothing wrong.

As long as you don't publicly out the person being ?red

(thus ruining their ability to get work elsewhere). any
innocent person will be able to move to another company
and will continue to have a wonderful career (since Google. you can get a job anywhere).
Awesome! You've actually hurt nobody!

Case 2: The accused person did something wrong.
Then we get rid of them. They do the same thing at their
next company and are also ?red immediately upon the
?rst complaint. Eventually they run through all the places
anyone would want to work and are ?nally unable to
bother anyone. leaving the world a better place. Or they

 

Anti-conservative postings
21

Gregory Collins
51:99 - 7 --

Boy is this exhausting.

Many Googlers have claimed that it is 'harassment' or some other rule violation
to critique articles that push the Social Justice political agenda. A few Googlers
have openly called for others to be fired over it. Do you support this viewpointclear statement of banned opinions to the employee handbook
so that everybody knows what the ground rules are?

Short answer, speaking for myself: yes, the posting of this kind of "critique' - and
in fact, the posing of this very question itself - directly contributes to the creation
of a hostile work environment for women at this company. We are hemorrhaging
good people because they don't want to put up with this crap anymore, and if it's a
question of "social justice' trying to ensure that everybody can feel
comfortable working here regardless of their gender) vs. whatever-it-is-people-on-
the?otheroside-are, I definitely know who I want sticking around.

You can post to the Breitbart comment section at home on your own time. And if
you feel like being asked to kindly not behave this way is censorship or that your
rights are somehow being violated: perhaps everybody involved might be happier if
you found some place to work where the culture is more in line with your values.

 

a

Anti-conservative postings
22

+1

Alon Altman
oAmy Freestone I see your point about job security. To some degree, this is
already the case with at-will employment. There are certain things that you
can do that will get you fired immediately.

What other options do we have to ensure that jerks and people who do not
respect their fellow employees don't stay employed here?

Amy Freestone

?Alon Altman That IS true (and given my first job was in logs analysis, was
qurte aware of that) However, such a thing would be unexpected and not a
matter of course

Liz Pong-Jones
oAlon Altman Easrer paths to figuring out who those people are and
terminating their employment

Kim Burchett  +2

+Bridget Spitznagel I don't expect to change people's behavior. I do expect
to have a place where others can see that their behavior is noted and not
approved of. I expect the list will be useful to nooglers trying to decide
which teams to join. I expect to use it to prod managers and directors and
VPs into taking action within their teams. I may also use it to submit
unsolicited peer feedback for anyone on the list, just to ensure that
committees are aware of their behavior and take it into account when
deciding whether to promote them.



+Fish Novosad I am considering this explicitly in order to counter the current
approach, where HR considers everything behind closed doors, and unless
someone's behavior is bad enough to warrant being fired, nobody else can
tell that anything ever happened. That kind of silence suggests consent or
indifference, which is very demoralizing.

 

Anti-conservative postings
23

 Larry Lansing

 13.1 You've created a great honeypot. Log the usernames, forward to HR, let the
firings continue until behavior improves. I don't want these people at my
company.

 Colin McMillen +42
- "I'm struggling to understand why this keeps happening even though I
understand why it keeps happening."

Because we don't fire enough people, that's why.

David Guild

?And yet we have a bunch of white males crying bloody
murder over the suggestion that we lower the hiring bar for women
and minorities. No one is saying we'll raisethe bar for them; it's not a zero-
sum game and we already can't hire enough people.

This seems equivalent to your driving scenario, albeit with some Signs
flipped helping more instead of harming less).

I think the unrealistic part of your scenario is where you say to group A,
"we're going to reward group and then you expect the members of A to
go "meh whatever'. Robots would do that. People do notdo that.

Moonshots

Product lead for early stage Google[x] projects and Rapid Eval.

General manager of Foundry, early stage projects.

Talk to me if you're interested to join in a PM or non-tech leadership role. Especially if you are a
woman 

I don?t have an open role at the moment, but always looking for good PMs

(.?ttpia gran?: avg-?gq?culcx CCer7090011.. JG 73)

For an talk or demo, go/iwantx

 

Anti-conservative postings
Z4

Nicolas Dumazet

and we shouldn't leave men behind

I ?nd it hard to read this without reacting very
strongly. I suggest removing this completely. or
rewording this signi?cantly.

Being privileged. Men are not left behind. Like. ever.
If you want a productive debate on this document. I
suggest removing rethoric of this sort.



James Damore

Did you read my link? There are many ways in
which men are left behind and education is an
example where women get more degrees at
every level.

I: Nicolas Dumazet
Your source isn?t relevant to my reaction. 00

you understand why "we shouldn't leave men
behind? is highly triggering? (I'm assuming that

 

 

"We'll never be a company that makes great products for everyone if we're not more re?ective of the outside world. As I shared with my org.
discussions on diversity can sometimes bring up ugly assumptions?from reverse discrimination to lowering the bar on talent?and that
needs to stop. We work hard to hire incredibly smart people and it's not about our standards changing. Our efforts to make Google more
diverse encompass everything from being more aware of biases. to shining a light on deserving talent and focusing on the leaders we already

have. to expanding the pool of talent. and more. And it?s not just up to minorities; we ALL have a role to play. and that goes for leadership too.

 

 

?Sridhar Ramaswamy

 

Anti-conservative postings
25

I believe this is what makes Slack, for example, so much more successful than us
at hiring, say, black engineers in the US. Their CEO actually believes this matters
for moral reasons. Meanwhile we worry about taking any action that might piss off
the horde of racist and sexist people we've already hired - the people who feel
nothing but apathy towards the blatant inequality that pervades our industry, yet
erupt with passion when they feel their advantages being discounted.

Kim Burchett

Here's a suggestion from my wife: think only women and poc should be allowed
to make hiring decisions at google for a year. And/or randomly assign a third of
each position type to only be hired by women, poc, or unselected type. Look at the
resulting hiring data. Google likes experiments? Do an experiment."

To make a measurable difference we need to make large changes, notjust small tweaks. Some
of what follows is my attempt to expand Google's Overton window, however most of it I think is
quite practical.

Here are some big changes we could do
We could make Atlanta a major of?ce.
We could start a policy of actively recruiting anyone in the top of their graduating
class, regardless of school.
We could hire people on the assumption that it's easier to learn to code at the level that
Google requires than to learn to be smart/friendly/creative (this one isn't as crazy as it
sounds - l've actually had success using this approach at previous companies)
We could make gender and race be explicit factors in hiring decisions add a 0.2
bump to interview scores seen by the hiring committee). There are ways to do this
without causing too much backlash.
We could set representation targets that each SVP must achieve (either via hiring or
attrition) or else forfeit 50% of their equity compensation.
We could hire activists to tell us what to do. Hire everyone from Project Include, pay
them well, give them staff and a project budget.
We could open a trade school, where we accept the responsibility for teaching people
how to code. Accept anyone from age 16 up. Locate it out in the middle of east
brooklyn or east palo alto (and move it once the area gentri?es). Couple it with a
guaranteed internship upon successful completion, and offer childcare. This would be
like McDonald's deciding to start its own farms because it?s not happy with the quality of
the produce its able to source.

 

Anti-conservative postings
26

This week googlers were openly discussing retaliation against those who raise concerns about promotions
based on sex (see g/men). People are afraid to speak out because of things like this. Is management doing
anything to make googlers feel safe to raise such concerns?

The standard of hiring should be by merit and merit only. not by race. gender, age or any other non-merit
related factors. Does the push towards diversity mean the hiring bar will be different for different
ethical/gender/ago group of candidates? If that is the case, it is discrimination by nature.

a 

I want to emphasize that. in relation to the original question, the hiring bar is already lower for men, for
white people, for abled people, for people in their twenties and thirties, because of biases we all hold.
Diversity efforts are to correct for these biases and ensure that everybody will be held to the same
standards. Denying that these biases exist doesn't make them go away.

 

Anti-conservative postings
Z7

. Thomas Bushnell, 886 googlecom 

h/t +Matthew Garrett for the link. See


I'm going to do my part to address this problem until recruiting comes up with a
coherent strategy. I'm not perfect at it, but I'm going to try, and I would
appreciate pointers to resources to take into account and things to be wary of.

From now on, I'm going to devote at least the first third of my 45 minute
interview time to a discussion of experience with diversity. If the first fifteen
minutes doesn't satisfy me. I'll continue the discussion. If need be, it will take
forty-five minutes.

I would encourage others to do the same. Judging "googliness' by a vague

gestalt with no deliberate attention to such things is inadequate. We need to
consciously ask and make it clear that this is part of what we care about.

El<

Restricted to google.com - View activity

 

Anti-conservative postings
Z8

Urs Holzle
Ate 

I just sent out an email congratulating Tl's newest directors and principal
engineers, and 10 out of 10 are male. While I am happy for all those promoted, I am
unhappy with this ratio -- my VPs and I know that it's on us to identify talented
women and help them grow into leaders. Overall, in TI, women were promoted at a
higher rate than men in this round, so I know we don't have a systemic
problem. And we're working on the pipeline; for example, we have a leadership
development program targeted at senior women engineers (more to come on this
soon), which started in TI and which other PAs are now adopting as well. But I
wanted to be upfront with this post and say: yes, I noticed that too.

the email 

Huge congrats to everyone who got promoted in this round and to our ten newest
Directors and Principal Engineers!

Once more, we've attempted to squeeze their tremendous achievements into just
ten words. This doesn't really capture the impact these folks are making on
Google's success. They all used their deep expertise to solve a big challenge??
whether it was getting various pieces of our infrastructure ready for the cloud and
the web of the future, keeping Google safe, or making networks much more
testable. And in order to get this done they all had to develop and enable their
teams and work collaboratively across organizations.

Why not take this as a good moment to step back and think of your own personal
work and how you can make your 'customers? happy, whether they're internal or
external. I can't promise that it'll result in a promotion but it?ll be deeply satisfying.
Rinse and repeat 

-Urs

 

Anti-conservative postings
29

Other recipients:?

If my understanding of the article is correct. it looks like prefacing Interview with something like "This is not a coding or math test. ljust want
to understand your way of thinking" could probably help.

Tangentially. do we have enough female interViewers? It may sound mean. but weeding out male candidates whose performance drops
Significantly when interviewed by a woman (if there are such candidates. of course) would. to me. be a good thing.

Bruce Murphy +5

You appear to be confusing "not permitted to talk about diversity" with
"people increasingly getting irritated that you derail constructive discussions
of fixing bias by  repeatedly asking 'what
about the hypothetical anti white male bias' and then claiming sexism when
this is pointed out."

Is there any chance you could stop doing that?

3 Jon Orwant



There are no blacklists.

If you trace back where this notion came from. it was a claim that there was one manager who allegedly kept
a list of people they didn't want to work with. Seems plausible. But that's it. If one wants to call that a blacklist.
OK. but it shouldn't be interpreted as an institutionalized phenomenon at Google.

Now, if someone wants to transfer onto my team. at some point I might do a "from:" search in my inbox for
their name. And so I'd see their posts to industryinfo@ and eng-misc@ and now pc-harmful-discuss@. I don?t
want jerks on my team. so if I saw jerky behavior that'd be a negative. Conversely, if I saw pleasant behavior.
that?d be a positive.

Jon

 

Anti-conservative postings
30

 

 

3 Urs Holzle google.com lvlale.2016 5

I'd like to comment on a pattern I frequently see in internal discussions, where
things go off the rails because (well intentioned, usually) engineers (always)
want to "examine the facts" or debate the "exact goals". A recent example is
below, screenshot only since it's been deleted in the meantime.

As engineers we're trained to pay attention to the details, think logically,
challenge assumptions that may be incorrect (or just fuzzy), and so on. These
all are excellent tools for technical discussions. But they can be terrible tools
for discussions around race, discrimination, justice, and so on, because these
discussions touch topics with a high cultural and emotional content. That's
because questioning the exact details can easily be perceived as questioning
the overall validity of the effort, or the veracity of a historical context.

In these situations, determining the exact truth can often be counterproductive
because it is situationally inappropriate. debating a point may be fine in one
context but totally inappropriate in a different context.

Let me illustrate this with a contrived example. Suppose you're attending
someone?s funeral. Everyone's emotional, and several people give eulogies
praising the deceased. Suppose that one of the speakers mentions how great a
parent the person was, and suppose you know for a fact (100% demonstrable,
documented, etc) that this is not correct. What would the reaction be if you got
up and said ?wait a second, that?s not quite true, in this particular situation back
in 2012 they weren't really a great parent?? It's highly likely that the reaction of
the audience will be independent of the correctness of your statement.
Everyone would be upset because it's simply the wrong place, and the wrong
time, to debate the exact details of the past. The goal of the funeral is to
celebrate the person, and to help family and friends come to terms with the fact
that they are gone. In a different context (say, a court case) the exact statement
could have been welcome, but here it is not and it?s not a subtle call, it's
obviously inappropriate.

So before you post on a thread, think about the larger context, and whether your
question is appropriate in the context of the thread. For example, the question
below clearly is inappropriate because it has a high probability of being
interpreted as ?these diversity efforts are questionable? (even more so since the
question clearly is rhetorical).

And just as a reminder, when you see something that you feel is off, report it at
go/saysomething. We don?t expect everyone to be skilled at intervening
themselves, but we do expect you to report it so someone else can.

[also available as a doc at 

I'm also interested in the answer to this question. The white majority in the US (63.7% Non-
Hispanic White of the United States) is
underrepresented in Google (60% White employees overall). If we want to achieve racial mix-
up to mimic the country then we should also hire more whites. Is that one of the goals of
diversity effort?

 

 

Anti-conservative postings
31

I'm very glad that at Google we do our very best to make sure everyone feels included and that
everyone can ?bring their whole self? to the of?ce. Not only is this a noble goal, but it?s the right
thing to do. I heard at TGIF that some conservatives people who hold conservative political
beliefs) don't feel comfortable expressing their political beliefs at the of?ce. At first I was
saddened by this, since it?s a sign of how divided our society has become. But then i realized
something:

Throughout the entire election campaign, one side has not only sought to divide, but has used
hatred and blatant racism to get ahead. Donald Trump has publicly stated, among many other
things:

0 Mexicans are rapists and murderers

0 Muslims should be banned from entering the US

0 Refused to condemn white supremacists who were campaigning for him

0

Promoted violence against peoole, such as black lives matter protesters, who have
views different than him

Unfortunately, when you vote for or nominate a candidate, you vote for the entire package. You
can?t support Donald Trump without also supporting his racism, misogyny, homophobia, and
transphobia. Or even worse, if you vote for Donald Trump because of his economic policy or
because you feel the other party is corrupt, then what you're saying is that economics is more
important than the safety of your peers.

This is where my tolerance ends: with intolerance. You can't support someone who sows seeds
of intolerance, and then complain that people aren't tolerating you. You need to decide, does
tolerance matter? Because if it does, then the things that Trump said during the campaign and
his nomination should have been dealbreakers for you. If not, then I?m sorry but you can?t claim
to want to be included while excluding others.

 

Anti-conservative postings

32
Adam Fletcher

While Google appears to be doing very little to quell the hostile voices that exist
inside the company, I want those hostile voices to know:

I will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don't care if you are
perfect fit or technically excellent or whatever.

I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product is
impacted by this decision. I'll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.

You're being blacklisted by people at companies outside of Google. You might
not have been aware of this, but people know, people talk. There are always social
consequences.

3 Urs Holzle google.com

Yesterday I came back from a week of internet- and cell-free vacation into
modem-speed land, and was dismayed to see the news about ?the document?.
Needless to say, I completely disagree with it, and find it deeply offensive.

In many ways it reminds me of other discussions about evolution), in that it
argues a position that will be Obsoleted by history. And I hope that we'll all pitch
in to create that future, soon.

As an optimist, the one positive outcome is the overwhelming support for an
inclusive workplace that it provoked. As a realist, I am saddened that the hurtful
statements in this document have been written at Google. Still, if there was any
question about the direction we're heading in. I hope the strong reaction by
Googlers settles it -- there's no path back to a past where it's ok to judge people
by their gender or identity. No way.

 

Anti-conservative postings
33

 

 

Paul Cowan
googlecom - Aug 25"?

OK, part II of my diversity.themed rants for the day.

There's a common thread I?ve seen in many diversity-related
discussions?Wshitshows. This is the repeated claim that people can't be punished,
or shamed, for expressing an opinion. I've seen ?freedom of speech" invoked more
than once.

Any argument about where "freedom of speech' starts and ends (the old ?fire in a
crowded theatre? argument) aside: please understand that freedom of speech is
the right to freely express an opinion. It is most assuredly not the right to express
an opinion with freedom from the consequences.

The fact that you have a right to express a dunderheaded opinion does not mean
you have the right to demand that everyone continues to respect you, to pay
attention to you, to listen to you, or even to treat you without contempt. It is as
much someone's right to judge you or wrongly) for your opinion as it is
yours to express it.

This applies regardless of the opinion. If you express a dunderheaded opinion
about religion, about politics, or about ?social justice", it turns out I am allowed to
think you're a halfwit. In some cases, I cannot acton my thinking (I generally can?t
fire you for thinking something I don't think about religion), but I'm perfectly within
my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box.

To make this more specifically about recent events: I saw a thread recently (which,
alas, I cannot find right now) in which someone described the (my words, not
theirs) cabal?, and (horror of horrors) used words very like "some of them
have even talked about having a list of people they won't work with?.

To be clear this is, in my opinion, perfectly acceptable. Quoting this as if it were
some egregious abuse of power, or of your rights, is laughable. Everyone in this
company has a right to work in an environment which makes them happy and
comfortable. Yes, I maintain (mentally, and not (yet) publicly) such a list. If I had to
work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to get them removed; or I
would change teams; or I would quit. My life, happiness, and mental health, are
worth too much to me to burn my precious happy-fu working with people I find
contemptible, unpleasant, or even in some cases merely irritating.

Like +Co lin Winter (see

RedirectToSandbox), I do, and will continue to, maintain such a list.

Sadly, my list grew larger by quite a bit this week.

But I take comfort in one thing: my list of people I'm proud and delighted to work
with grew by even more. So, on average: thanks, everyone.

 

 

Anti-conservative postings
34

jaqur 711121.:  
I contributed to a gender bias remvl fixit, and had to keep a list of the people who
objected, so I I remembered who to avoid in the future.

1  1  8

0 Paul Cowan
  i



Fun fact! Keeping a list can get you called out
on a certain reprehensible internal mailing
list, and have threats of being reported to HR.

 ~11 Ply.? - :1 Au": 4: 

1 3&3.jaqur f: '1 it
  Wu: 

That is not a fun fact. Did an MRA start that policy?

2



Paul Cowan I 
Oh wait. yeah. not "fun". The other one that starts with always get those two
mixed up.

Paul Cowan 
Rm  
Threats I ignored, naturally. and which ironically grew the list substantially.

1 . 7

 

Anti-conservative postings
35

Collin Winter


One of the great things about Google's internal u: orrmunication mechan (Gs,
mai'rng iists, etc), is that as a manager, I can easr'y go find out ifl really want to
work with you. When we're chatting for 30 minutes because you want to join my
team. you're going to be on your best behaviour; if that masking a strearr of 
rants be?itt'ing your coworkers, Im going to find out.

I keep a written blacklist of people whorr. I will never a'low on or near my team,
based on how they View and treat their coworkers That black'ist got a l'ttle longer
today

intersectional 
Canceling reservations for white 

1 1 aat?vtr.? 

 Danielle Levlnson

Hi All.

There are more white supremacrst rallies planned for August 26th in SF and August 27th In Berkeley. Do you know anyone who works at
Airbnb and who can work with management there to cancel white supremacists' reservations? It so. please reach out to them!

I have a further thought on this, and I know I'm violating Godwin?s Law by saying it: during the 19303 and
19403 IBM collaborated closely with the Nazis on the information systems that underpinned the Nazis'
ability to execute the Holocaust. Do we want to similarly enable the current US administration?



 

Anti-conservative postings
36

Jay Gengelbach - googlecom 

And here, I'm a little disappointed with how Google and other big companies
behave. This company does a criminal background check on its employees-but
do we look around for patterns of harassment? Do we pass on information from
our HR investigations to companies that call us for a reference? All we've said
publicly about James Damore or any similar case is that we can confirm that
they've been terminated. My understanding is that in reference calls, managers
are encouraged not to say anything negative about former employees.

I believe there's a lawyercatly reason underpinning this. Sharing details about
someone's termination can be construed as defamation, and limiting their future
employment prospects would be damages that could potentially be recovered in
a defamation lawsuit. But to that, I say: 80 Google doesn't move on any
such cases without substantial evidence. 'Truth' is a defense to defamation
claims, and although it costs money to defend them, I'd hope that this mattered
enough to us that we were willing to put some money on the line for it. And I
don't think a lot of offenders would be interested in stepping into court to
publicly face whatever evidence we have against them that led to our
terminating them. If we really care about diversity in tech. we don?t just need to
chase serial offenders out of Google, we need to discourage them all throughout I
the industry. We should be willing to give a wink and a nod to other Silicon Valley
employers over terrninable offenses, not send the worst parts of tech packing
with a smile and 3 years of employment at Google on their resumes. We should
be working with our victims to say 'We have all this documentation of this case.
and we're happy to refer it onward to Mountain View Police Department if you'd
like," so the worst of these things show up in those criminal background checks
that big companies like to do.

We need to be the end of the line for serial offenders-not just another stop on
their spree of misery. "Catch and release" is not an OK orientation towards
people who make tech toxic. We should be leading an alliance of big tech
companies who are willing to take a stand on erasing abuse from tech, and
willing to take risks to do so. Silence is a part of rape culture. We shouldn't be a
part of it.

 

Anti-conservative postings
37

91?} Jay Laefer +2

{~91 I haven't looked at g/politics in quite a few months, so I don't
know how bad that's been. The worst stuff I read recently is at
g/freespeech.

Back in August 2015, I reported some of the worst

g/freespeech posts to leadership. I hadn't realized it's been a
year and a half since then, and some of the recent posts are
far worse. However, I don't have enough emotional energy right
now to dig through and report my recent concerns. I'll try to
make some time this week. The posts aren't going anywhere.
unfortunately.

 

 

Trump or Hillary? (Responses) 

 

Flle Edlt View Data Tools Help
a 
A I 

I Timestamp Do you support Trump or tor President?
2 9/27/2016 22:46:31 Other candidates 
3 9/27/2016 22:33:42 Hillary 
4 9127/2016 22:37:17 mum, Count of Do you support Trump or Hillary for
5 9/27/2016 22:30:02 Hillary Pres/?09??
6 9/27/2016 22:39:39 Hillary . 0W3, candida!?
7 9/27/2016 22:46:20 Donald Trump 0 Hillary Clinton
8 9127/2016 22:49:53 Hillary Donald Trump
9 9/27/2016 22:50:29 0 Ted Cruz
10 9/27/2016 22:56:19 Donald Trump . 51??
11 9/27/2016 23:05:55 . 53? 
12 9127/2016 23:08:02 Hillary .  22:2;5
13 9127/2016 23:09:24 Other candidates . Johnson
?4 9127/2016 23:10:46 . Bemle Sande?
15 9/27/2016 23:10:39 Hillary 
16 9/27/2016 23:16:04 
17 9127/2016 23:16:34 Hillary 
18 9/27/2016 23:18:07 Hillary 
19 912712016 23:18:47 
20 9127/2016 23:19:45 Donald Trump

 

 

2l 9127/2016 23:20:14 Other candidates

Google endorsing political violence
38

?3 Anthony Baxter googlecom

Funny story when I posted a (somewhat exaggerated) anti Nazi post I was
told to delete it yet this latest is ok.

That Piece is all good and fine, apparently. I merely suggested that punching
nazis had a fine tradition of well all of the twentieth century. That was too much,
yet this stuff is Get serious. Everyone involved in that "I'm a pathetic man

baby who is unable to deal with the modern world" needs to get in the bin.

Google HR - don't be mean to actual Nazis they are valued coworkers.
Me::They're Nazis. No.

I will absolutely go out of my way to make sure I never work near anyone
involved with or who endorsed that garbage. Because Nazis.

And you should absolutely punch Nazis.

+1

Restricted to (gust; 9 tin?. - 

Shia [3380!" a Nazi
;i 



 

a nathanhealey

Counter-pomt: Talk shit, get hit.

 

Google endorsing political violence
39

Matthew Montgomery +8
We went to war over this shitroundtable

with Churchill, FDR, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler. et al. We killed Nazis
until the Nazis stopped. Why? Nazis wouldn't stop until it became
clear that they could not win. and it is the ONLY reason they
stopped, because they were utterly defeated. With large scale
violence, killing thousands of humans and destroying billions of
dollars worth of property. THAT was the only language they
understood. Anything else, you'll recall, was branded as
appeasement. I'm pretty sure we know that's ~objectively bad.

To paraphrase MLK, punching a Nazi is the language of the
oppressed. MLK was pretty clear that you need BOTH the threat
of violent and non-violent resistance for the latter to be an
effective threat. MLK refused to condemn the more violent
elements of the civil rights era despite repeated calls because
without that threat, they'll just keep killing you.

This is why I refuse to condemn rioters, or punching Nazis. This
is targeted, political, defensive violence. It's what happens when
you leave otherwise nonviolent people with no other choice. and
it's what happens when a movement ignores everything else:
facts, reason, morality, empathy, justice, fairness, whatever.

This is not an ideological debate, full stop, period. We are in a
failure mode of democracy. This is literally, in every respect, a
power struggle. It's a struggle over who gets to set the rules of
society, who has the power to determine facts and morality. It's
best we dispense with any illusions otherwise.

80 let some black bloc guy punch a Nazi, and let the world point
and laugh. Let it be symbolic and let all the Nazis fear. And then
repeat after me: this is not normal. This is not normal.

 

Google endorsing political violence
40

Rachel Blum (corpsified) ?5
If you subscribe to an ideology that, as a matter of fact, wants

to kill people because they are different - and has, by the
millions - then you deserve being punched in the face.
Repeatedly.

And if I ever subscribe to an ideology like that, please punch
me in the face as well. By all means.

Lee 
My problem with Breitbart isn't that I disagree with them. Its
that they're objectively pro-Nazi.

Tim Chevalier googlecom Aug 25, 2017 

'i'm a queer-ass nonbinary trans person that is fucking sick and tired of being
told to open a dialogue with people who want me dead

we are at a point where the dialogue we need to be having with these people is
"if you keep talking about this shit, i will hurt you"

we are beyond the point of ~opening dialogue to win hearts and minds~

we are at the point where the only way to change people's minds is to make
being a fucking nazi have consequences'

Nora Reed

 

Google endorsing political violence
41



Torrey Hoffman google com

Also in the mood to punch Nazis, but none within punching distance.

Originally shared by Chris Conway

I'm in a mood to punch some Nazis but there are no Nazis currently within
punching distance, instead I'm going to match up to $5,000 in donations to
the following organizations that are fighting the good fight.

- National Immigration Law Center erg)
- Southern Poverty Law Center (httz), spicente' Ol g)
- Transgender Law Center zirrg)

 

"America First"
. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Google endorsing political violence
42

'Why We Fight: Frequently Asked Questions

m, 2017 09:39 am
Jtim
I used to be a pacifist. It's easy to be one when you aren't being attacked.

Large-scale violence always starts with ideas and rhetoric, because rhetoric eases
organizing and large-scale violence requires the consent and participation of many
people. How do you let people know you don't take their ideas seriously? How do you
defend yourself against ideas that can only cause harm to you? Communicating that
you will refuse to listen is one way, but it doesn't scale. No-platforming powerful
fascists does scale. So does punching one on camera.

Here's a FAQ list of things people have asked me or, in some cases, things they
would have asked me if they had thought to ask rather than assuming an answer --
about why I think fascism must be stopped by any means necessary.

That was the theory; here's the practice:
How to (Properly) Punch a Nazi by Master Randall Trang

 

Make a tight fist. Use your legs and hips.
Squeeze all the air out. Plant your back leg pivot

Hit w/ the 2 knuckles. on it as you punch. This
turns your hips into it 

drives the punch forward.

. shoulders



 

 

 

 

 

 

Google endorsing political violence
43

2. Okay, sure, I accept that definition of ?fascism?. But Trump isn?t a fascist, is he?

Yes, he is -- not because I disagree with Trump (I'm not sure Trump has a
coherent enough ideology for the word "disagree" to denote much, though Steve
Bannon certainly does), but because he fits the definition of "fascist." Quoting
Emily Gorcenski again:

So let's look at how we're using the term today. Is the modern GOP a
fascist party? Is Trump? His supporters?

Trump won with the minority popular vote. So there's that. He's
controlling narratives away from negative views of his party.

His policies involve cutting off resources for marginalized communities.
His supporters call anyone not a white man a "snowflake."

His rise to power was strongly aided by technology. He wants to march
tanks through DC in a show of military might.

He has a singular focus on restoring manufacturing jobs to the US at the
expense of other services.

And he and his team regularly harp about "unity" and patriotism.
So yes, Trump is a fascist and his team promotes fascism.

Not because I disagree with them, but because actions align with fascist
policy.

If you talk like a fascist and you act like a fascist and you govern like a
fascist, you're probably a fascist.


DR: fascism requires mandatory unity for strengthening the state and
isn't about dismissing speech or dissent.

3. okay, maybe he's a fascist, but the people elected him, so don ?t you have to
accept him as our leader?

No. Donald Trump exploited a loophole in the Constitution in order to take over the
government. Voting in the US is based on the electoral college because the
founders foresaw that the popular vote might result in the election of an
incompetent leader. They thought that the job of president was too important to
entrust directly to the majority. They wrote the electoral college into the

 

Google endorsing political violence
44

. Fine, there might be a few bad guys we can 't convince, but surely the majority will
see they?re wrong.

History suggests otherwise. As Rachel Stark points out (read the whole thread),
no-platforming is the only effective defense against fascists because the
wrongness of their position is not obvious -- over time, fascists have adapted and
found ways to re-brand themselves that bypass people's defenses, much like pop-
up ads that make it past your ad blocker. Ideally no-platforming would be done
peacefully, and it usually is, but sometimes peaceful methods fail, and punching a
Nazi if it prevents genocide is a moral imperative.

So I am 100% pro punching Nazis tired of hearing this debated, but I
wonder if folks realize WHY anti-fascists punched that Nazi.

We don?t punch Nazis out of anger (though we are mad), or to change
their minds (they don?t want to 

We don?t even punch Nazis because it feels good (though it feels SO
good).

A central Antifa (anti-fascist) principle is that fascists CANNOT be
allowed to have a platform.

Tim Chevalier googlecom

Trying to 'work behind the scenes' with the Trump regime means trying to work
with white supremacists and make compromises with them. Is that what we

want Google to do?

. Tim Chevalier googlecom

Steve King, a Republican member of the House of Representatives, used Twitter
to call for ethnic cleansing.

How much more evidence do you need that the Republican party is openly
advocating for white nationalism in 2017? No, not every Republican member of
Congress is saying this nor are they taking out their trash.

 

Google endorsing political violence
45

Punch All the Nazis {r 14?
"sq to

I could have said "Republicans", "conservatives . alt-right neo-Nazi". doesn't
matter, They're all working together for the same goal.

1 4 11;; 2

Punch All the Nazis {r fat'ieCkbeafigmj,? 14".
When the Republican party talks about "freedom of speech" these days, what
they mean is "freedom to dehumanize". Don't be fooled.

10

 

Google endorsing political violence
46

Tim Chevalier Aug 29, 2017
Public

[Trying a public post here; I won?t hesitate to disable comments if necessary]

domestic violence]
Thread from @quicksilvre on Twitter:

'Thinking about the trend of trying to explain away antifascist violence as
"random." It?s anything but random. It's very precisely targeted

There is literally only one reason an antifascist would be violent towards you:
you are a fascist

I mean. human beings are human beings and we're complex and we never only
have one reason for doing anything but still

People don't commit antifascist violence except in response to fascist violence.
Antifascists are not roaming, looking for punching targets

Antifascists are showing up where proud fascists are making public displays of
force and making their own public displays of force.

If you don?t want to get punched by an antifascist, it's simple: don't go to white
supremacist rallies and don?t own white power symbols

It's not ~oppression~ if you can't be out 8. proud about your belief that white
people are just ~better~ without the risk of being punched

Getting punched for participating in a white supremacist rally is not oppression.
it's reasonable social consequences

Not being able to express your belief that groups of people are "lesser" 8. should
be done away with without facing violence isn't oppression

It's perfectly reasonable to expect a violent response to the expression of hate
speech because hate speech is itself violence

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
47

If want to increase at 0009"}


. 

I- - - .


Bruce Murphy Aug:  :ch2 +3

Maybe a clamour would work better than surgical intervention, but I just
forsee endless escalation between honest decent folks and the defenders of
the hypothetical oppressed white male until HR steps in and fires everybody.

Have we actually triend non-seIf-directed adjustment? (Warnings don't
count, there's no specific outcome)

The only way we "move past color' in America is for white people to shut up and
listen. And yes. it means people used to be in the spotlight (I'm looking at you,
Justin) need to step back and quietly build a stage for others to speak. That's
which is Justin's only role in this.

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
48

- If you are majority group here], there are times to
just shut up and listen. Try for some empathy. You'll learn a lot.

Jon Klem .4t;!i +1

Every time I?m reminded of the travails of Kathy Sierra it

makes me want to pound a brogrammer in the face.
#countingtoten

 

. 

 
s? I
(II I .ll. 4,
.I .ll 
9?4
.. iq?~ -

 

 

 

i?i?
rd
t?i



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anti-Caucasian postings

 
     
    

49
You HAVE No INTEREST 
In EQUAL Rierm - . Souk
Quack PEOPLEMAKE Succes?oas To WMNG New? .  .

 
 
 

muse WHO DO CALLED ?x I .  

a?E's - 0 
Bum BLACK 
. OUT OF SIGHT 9

 
 

 

AsfandyarQureshi google.com

am a white male and I am sick and tired of being demonized and blamed for
society's ills. I am sick and tired of my race and gender being the target of real.
honest hate that society would not tolerate if directed at
other groups"

A Googler explaining why he voted for Trump (doc link at end). The more I learn
about Googlers outside my immediate circles, the less I want to be anywhere

near them.

This is so disconnected from reality I don't even know what to say. Most "real,

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
50

Paul Cowan

It's good to be periodically reminded, given how popular Dilbert is
amongst us geekfolk, that the creator of Dilbertis (among other
things) a paranoid sexist dickbag.



,3 Burcu Dogan
.. .
Google, STOP THIS 

There are numerous sexual abuse and harassment cases going on at Google. All
internal threads I have skimmed through were dominated by men debating
about false accusations and their legal implications.

We can't address the harassment issue, because you want to keep harassing us.
You want to offend us. You want to ignore us. You want to ignore our issues and
stick back to your daily masturbation about your manly problems. Any woman who
is questioning the status quo is reacting over-sensitively, should be a drama queen
or seeking for possibilities to damage a powerful man's career. This is how your
brain works.

Being disturbed by your arrogance and annoyance, I don't feel safe at Google
anymore.

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
51

I Kim Burchett
in 2:15 Ttggie 

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
52

 

 

Chloe Stevens
an; 

if you read one post today, read this one.

originally shared:

A coworker quit. In her parting letter, she felt the company was a
toxic environment, inferred as bad for diversity employees.

um

Hard

 

Straight White Male: The Lowest Difficulty Setting There
Is I Whatever

 

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
53

google-com

"The paradoxical implication is that the same characteristics that
enable male managers to rise to the top of the corporate or political ladder are
actually responsible for their downfall. In other words, what it takes to get the
job is not just different from, but also the reverse of, what it takes to do the job
well."

Why Do 80 Many Incompetent Men Become Leaders?

Haryard
Busmess

Review

hbr.org

Restricted to gouge cam - mew actzvitv

3) By being a white male you arein a privileged class that is actively harmful
to others, whether you like it or not. So no, you really actually don?t get to
complain about your right to an opinion. You are in a position of power, be
mindful of that.

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
54

Cassiano Mecchi (Cassi) BGN EMEA

Though this speaks to USA-specific numbers, I found it very useful.

White Privilege, Explained in One Simple Comic -
Everyday Feminism

HI THEQE





LIKE QEALLY WHITE. LIKE 50

TAKE PICTLIQES
everydayfeminlsmeom 1-H me pugs? 

I 
., 5w

  Cassiano Mecchi (Cassi)


Diversity Busmess Partner - EMEA GMS, gTech, GCAS Data Centres - cassl - he him

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
55

Peter Goett

I hate when industryinto takes Important issues and devolves Into arguelng about minuta and misses the big picture. No matter who was invited by
Google. there would have been a non-inconsequential amount of vitriol just because they were women standing up for a feminist cause.

Maybe to the small population 01 people who know the details of gamer?gate. the invite list is problematic. For the vast majority of Americans (the ones
who have never heard of gamer?gate). the fact that this program exists Is a good thing. These women are quali?ed to speak to online harassment.
regardless of their perceived tactics.

Just going to put this here and quote John Oliver- 'If you're thinking that doesn't seem like that big of a problem. congratulations on your white ignis'.

4K

liitefm?ale sails
diversity isn't imnortant

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
56

6 Wesley Darlington googlecom

Isn?t it interesting that Travis Kalanick gets as many chances to grow up as he
wants - he's 40!! - but Trayvon Martin was 17.

+1 7

Restricted to googie com - View 

. Viet-Tam Luu +3
133:? Resharing this under the phrase, 'Okay Google. define
white privilege."

6 Jonathan Feinberg googlecom 1?   ?17'1' 

The doc considered formally as abuse springing from an entitled worldview.
Excellent essay.

tim Refusing to Empathize with Elliot
Rodger: Taking Male Entitlement Seriously

timdreamwidthorg

Restricted to google com - View activity

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
57

Scott Bruceheart

c: le com

Dear all the boys: do not put the burden of relieving your systematic misogynistic
discrimination on women.

Dear all the white people: do not put the burden of relieving your systematic racist
discrimination on the people that aren't white.

It is not the responsibility of the victim to end the victimization. It is the
responsibility of the victimizer to stop being terrible.

??l?im

42 comments

I Please don't put "all the boys'. 'all the white people", or any other entire
demographic into the 'victimizer' bucket. It is not the responsibility of
everyone who kinda looks like the person who committed an offense to right
it.

. Manuel Klimek +5

it is the responsibility of the privileged to end the privilege
though. Nobody else can.

Scott Bruceheart +4 +1 Reply I-
just leave this here: http.f/goodmenprojeczt com hite-


 

Anti-Caucasian postings
58

9 AntonioD'souza googlecom


From 

(a white Googler), in an attempt to build rapport with a Black Noogler and
demonstrate my lack of ignorance of Black History, ended up whitesplaining
Black History to demonstrating my ignorance of Black History in
the process. A few minutes later, feeling like a complete idiot, I went back to him
and apologized for whitesplaining"

First time I've seen a mea-culpa submission. Would be nice to see more
demonstrations of self-awareness.

If you understand I were (mended
when that said that white men hall l0
some research and read about privilege

you should really lle some research
and read about privilege [and also
attend a bias session].

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
59

3 Liz Pong?Jones google.com w,

Aug 9 53 AN.

This is a pretty good article about the 'walking on eggshells" effect as actually
experienced by people of color - of being afraid to point out racial stressors for

fear of being lumped as 'over-sensitive",
palatable and not trigger defensiveness.

and of needing to phrase things to be

The Sugarcoated Language Of White Fragility

 

Cause of Racial Stress

Effect on Aspect of White Identity

 

Suggesting that a White person's
viewpoint comes from a racialized frame
of reference

Challenge to objectivity

 

People of color talking directly about their
own racial perspectives

Challenge to White taboos on talking
openly about race

 

People of color choosing not to protect
the racial feelings of white people in
regards to race

Challenge to White racial expectations and
need/entitlement to racial comfort

 

People of color not being willing to tell
their stories or answer questions about
their racial experiences

 

David Seldman

 

masculinity"


i



 

The male gender role is currently in?exible

This is partially incorrect. Male gender roles are an
active area of study and activism. See "toxic



Challenge to the expectation that people of
color will serve White people

 

 

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
60

 

 

Asfandyar Qureshi
a; i -- 

 

The article works just as well if you replace white? 'male

'How dare you suggest that I could have said or done something
racist!"  Outrage IS often fo/lowed by righteous indignation about
the manner in which the feedback was given.

Derailing and tone policing. it's comical how often those happen in
these discuss:ons. Exemplified by the second comment on Kim 3
post, which is about why racism IS an inappropriate word for
'structural oppression.

l4? fiJAl?L

(Turning comments off, because I have work to do.)

Kim Burchett 

write and teach about what it means to be white in a society that
proclaims race meaningless, yet remains deeply divided by race. A

 

 

 

Anti-Caucasian postings
61

Bridget Spitznagel
"it -  

attn. BGN allies white folks), this is relevant to your interests

whiteness/

This external talk will be recorded but you have to register to get the
future recording. The problem that it is meant to solve is: "many
white folks [who want to help] don't know where to start and feel
overwhelmed by the emotions that begin to arise - whether that's
feeling frozen with guilt, powerless to make a difference, or defensive
about the idea that racism is a factor.?

I think this problem does come up here a lot and this talk may be
more effective than reading posts (IDK, I haven't seen it.)

. '12.
Healing from Toxic Whiteness to
Better Fight for Racial Justice

A FREE Online Workshop
By Everyday Feminism
September 15, 2016

?5

Healing from Toxic Whiteness

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
62

3? Dave Burke google.com 
4?

Taking a quick pause from my vacation over in Ireland. Like most of you, I've
read the document (and indeed can?t miss it given the press coverage).

If you haven't seen these already. I strongly recommend reading Yonatan
Zanger?s 
manifesto-l e3773edl 788) and Mike Cleron's


rebuttals. They nail it.

But above all else. if you're on my team. or work with my team, and were as
dismayed and frustrated as was reading this document, feel compelled to let
you know 3 things:

1/3: I will not stand for this BS.

2/3: I am more committed than ever to an inclusive and diverse team.

3/3: We have your back.

+1 :1 

Restricted to google com - View actiwty

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
63

AngePIrta lnguanzc linguar?2203
Today. 4.13 PM

As engineers it is expected that we provide interviews to prospective
Googlers. how can we better ensure that people with these bias aren't part of
the interviewing process moving forward. It makes me uncomfortable that
the group of people that "supported" his doc should continue to participate.

a 7

9 Simon Hgmard i?fra':
us-c.arl.4-- Today  3:3 pm

Meta-request: There are a lot of questions from men on this Dory. Will you
ensure that questions from women are given equal time during this Town
Hall?

a 7

Heather Young lheatheryoung:

59 rmutes ago
The author was not alone in his views: 175+ people agreed to some degree
before the poll was taken down (and leaked). They -and others like them-
work among us. and may be managers. on hiring/promo committees, etc.

What is being done to understand the true scope of this cancer within our
culture?

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
64

6 Paul Cowan - googlecom

YES

Originally shared by Tanya Reilly

God, please let our inevitable public statement be less toothless than that
internal mail. We need to say "Wow, that was some bullshit right there. We've
fired that guy [into the sun], and updated our code of conduct to say not to do
anything that looks even a bit like that, ever. Also, we're looking at how we can
change our interview processes to notice toxic opinions like that, because
seriously, wtf, where did that come from? Sorry everyone, that must have been
exhausting. It was for us too.?

Healthy debate.

Come on.

Andy Carrel (wac) - googlecom

Completely unsurprised that my "to" gmail label, which I use to avoid
interactions with toxic Googlers that we apparently do not want to terminate, is
?lled with posts attempting to defend that doc. It makes me wish we had an
internal blocktogether equivalent.

9 Bryan Klimt - googlecom

I'm on vacation and ignoring work stuff, but the bullshit is seeping into the public
internets today. So I came here to say something. If you think women are
inherently less capable of coding, leading, etc please leave. If you don't respect
Google's values of diversity and inclusion, quit. Frankly, you?re lucky I'm not in a
position to fire you.

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
65

Collin Winter googlecom if Aug 7,9 03 3M 

So. That Doc.

I'm thrilled that you don't feel comfortable expressing these views at Google. I'm
excited that you can't question the humanity and basic value of your coworkers
without worrying about blowback. I'm happy that publicly undermining the
people around you might carry some consequences.

I'm happy that treating people with respect has become table stakes. I'm happy
that Googlers have reacted like a body to an infection, surrounding and isolating,
trying to contain the damage, to limit how many people your pseudo-scienti?c
racism and sexism can hurt.

Because this is an infection, and this is actively hurting people. How could it
not?

Because this isn?t an intellectual exercise. This isnt taxes, or infrastructure
spending, or foreign policy; this isn't an area for dispassionate discussion, where
we can bat around different ideas over lunch.

This is an attack on people as people, on people's humanity, on people's
employment, security, on their place in the world. On their fundamental value as
human beings.

And that is why there can be no 'healthy debate". No one should have to debate
their own humanity or the terms of their own existence. The very idea is
demeaning and degrading.

There will be no debate, there will be no discussion. The matter is settled. You
lost.

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
66

Trevor Schroeder googlecom

I just realized something very liberating because it's been a question I've been
struggling with.

Even in the event we would hesitate to dismiss a person for espousing

repugnant opinions, if nobody is willing to work with them then they cannot be a
part of a team and cannot be retained.

Cl <3

Restricted to goagre com - View activity

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
67

6 Benjamin TreynorSloss - googlecom -

- DO NOT FORWARD OUTSIDE 

Team, all.
To the many inquiries I've received: YES.

Yes. I've seen the 'Echo Chamber' doc;
Yes, I personally deeply disagree with much of its content and insinuations;
Yes, it shows that bias is alive and well in the minds of at least a few we've hired;
Yes, I remain resolute that bias and discrimination have no place in my team.
just as they have no place at Google.

and finally,
Yes, I will continue to work to ensure that bias at Google - whether stated baldly,
or concealed - is rendered powerless through our practices, our systems, and
the un?agging attention of [the vast majority of] our people.

-Ben
+1 3

Restricted to google com - View activity

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
68

a Meredith Whittaker - googlecom

I think it's critically important that we discuss the steps women and minorities at
Google should take when faced with colleagues who openly supported the
views in the doc. This is a functional workplace. and many are already dealing
with this question and the anxiety that comes with it.

To this end, ask those who agree to amplify:


What should women and minorities at Google do if someone who openly
supported the doc is transferred to their team, or added as a pert revuewer, or
becomes their manager?

a 

. Patrick Jones googlecom

I could say lots ofthings, but other people have said them much better than me.
So I'll just say, fuck those opinions, and fuck people who think it's OK to have
them.

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
69

9 Rick Klau google.com u: Aug  -

is wrong. I'd say it is
comically mis-informed. but there's nothing about it that's funny. The author
does a fantastic job convincing me that I'd never work with him, never
encourage anyone to hire him, and will now re-double my efforts to ensure that
those around me understand that anyone holding such views has no place on
any team I'm a part of.

One last point: the staggering lack of empathy, the implicit assumption in
that it's his safety that must be prioritized over those who are not like
him. his views that must be respected above He's not trying to help
Google, he shows no interest in leveraging the skills of those around him. He's

just trying to protect his own sense of superiority relative to everyone else.

To the thousands of women who share their talents with Google, thank you. I
value you, I respect you, see you.

To the men at Google who don't agree with the author of let this
moment shine a light on the shit that those women confront day in and day
not always this explicitly, but certainly implicitly. Acknowledge that
challenge, appreciate that they're not just trying to do their job, but trying to lean
into the headwind generated by blowhards who believe that they're genetically
incapable of doing their job. let alone excelling at it.

As for the men who agree with You're welcome to your opinion. I'll
give you that. But you are wrong, and you are outnumbered.

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
70

Mekka Okereke googlecom Aug! 7 7  

see an unfortunate misunderstanding that's going on in communication
between leadership and most of Google, speci?cally around ?reasoned debate."
We are attributing missteps in communication to a very unfavorable intent.

What I think leadership are trying to communicate is:

?This PCCH nonsense is trying to hide behind the veil of reasonable, data driven,
challenging of assumptions that they know we like. No one is buying this.

We want to shut this nonsense down hard, but in a way that doesn't prevent us
from having real conversations about other important topics in the future. Doing
this right takes time."

Andrew Young googlecom - Aug: v5.41)? 3t." 

I've been struggling for a while with the limitations on "being your whole self" at
work and I think this demonstrates the shortcomings of that presumption,
although I have other examples. We're a large multinational company. Nobody
should expect to be able to be their whole self, particularly the parts of their
whole self that make others uncomfortable. If your whole self reinforces the
existing privilege structure, all the more so.

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
71

03?
Andrew Over - googlecom

Freedom of speech and freedom of consequence from speech are two entirely
different things. If the only thing holding you back from saying things that
degrade/devalue/disrespect your coworkers is fear of consequence and this
makes you feel uncomfortable. perhaps spend some time thinking about why
that is and whether Google is the right place for you.

There's little else I can say that hasn't been said more eloquently by others.

 Zac Bowling - googlecom

James Demore is a troll. He was on campus by the Android ?gures and was
trying to go live on pariscope during the town hall. Doubling down on his rhetoric
it seems to make himself an icon instead of apologizing and going into a corner
to let this all blow over for himself. Looks like he never wants to work in tech
ever again.

A

Colln <rncmillen@googleconw 8/6/17 (A Reply to all 
 '13? I.  fl'll'? 
Can I be upset about both of those things?

Sure 

But Vox Day isn?t on my side. He doesn't speak for me. I don't think anyone would imagine that he does.
{Quick summag from people who don't like him. He's about as well-respected as Richard Spencer.) Well.
maybe they would. but they'd be wrong. Do I need to make this clear? Vox Day is a mean person with terrible
ideas and worse manners. he's not on "my side'. and I'm not on his. I hope that helps clear things up.

The speci?c part I'm concerned with the leaks to Vox Day is: it was done by a Googler. Said Googler knows that
Vox Day and his followers have a history of 'doxxing" various they dislike. Whoever leaked this knew full
well what they were doing. and that it would put speci?c Googlers' lives in potential danger. and leaked
con?dential communications intentionally. knowing all those things.

And thinking Vox Day 'is' on their side. (Othenlvise why would they leak to Vox Day in particular?)

Whoever did this should not just be ?red: they should be arrested for reckless endangerment of human life.

Colin

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
72

. Vicki Tardif Holland googlecom 1 Aug 13- 92?3Alv? 

I am always amazed at the need some early/mid-career engineers have to write
(internal to Google) public. career-limiting documents. Of course, they are
usually followed a year later with table?ipping epitaphs about how they are
leaving because it is impossible to get to L6.

+1 1:5: 4 

Restricted to google com - View activity

Francis Fung
Well, actually, I?ll bet they have sincerely held reasons for taking

these actions.

(Is that sufficiently sarcastic to avoid Poe's law? I can't tell
anymore. 

Vicki Tardif Holland +2
+Francis Fung I am sure they do. But when someone claims

Google has "extremist and authoritarian policies' because they
were forced to sit in Unconscious Bias training for a few hours,
I don't know how to get around Poe's Law.

Simone Wu
Seriously! What IS it with these goofballs?

Christopher Richards
I wonder how often Google is their first employer. I suspect

most other employers are less likely to let matters get to the
"career-limiting doc" phase, not to mention the "wondering why
not promoted' phase.

 

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
73

9 Trevor Schroeder googlecom

have the feels so I'll keep spewing until I don't or I'm sufficiently embarrassed to
stop.

As a manager, I have to walk a fine line when it comes to political neutrality.

It is inappropriate to speak from a position of authority about what is or is not
correct political orientation.

However. Google has very clear values and ones which would cause me to leave
should I feel they were violated include pursuit of diversity and inclusion.

If your personal or political views are antithetical to that you can get the hell out.
I know where the door is.

I'm sure wound up about this.

+1

Restricted to googie com - View activity

i Travis Wise googlecom Lug Fagin! 

We appear to have some employees who (1) have too much free time on their
hands at work, and (2) aren't a good cultural fit with the values of the company
they work for. They should find another place to work.

+1 Cl <3

Restricted to googie com - View activity

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
74

Timothy Jordan google.com 

Below is the email I sent my team this week

Subject: Everyone on this team belongs here

Hey Team.

By now many of you will have heard about or read the 'pc manifesto' written by
an ill-informed and misguided person at this company. I'm so incredibly
disappointed that one of our coworkers could possibly think this is even
remotely a contribution to objective debate. This is mansplaining at it's most

caustic and it's not okay.

I found myself looking for catharsis by reading Yonatan's response

which led to his piece on Tolerance (Tolerance is not a
moral precept, Z), Julie Pango's So You Want to Be an Ally
and 101 off limits and Terri
Oda's How does biology explain the low numbers of women in computer
science? Hint: it doesnt 

All that helped, but I needed to do one more thing, I needed to write this email.
Because we're all in this together. We don't have to just deal with the tech
industry we inherited, we can actively build the one we want. What do you
want? I want a culture that values open discussion and exchange of ideas but
also one that unmasks prejudice disguised as scientific reasoning. I want an
industry that deeply values diversity without question and fights for it. That's
why I'm going to Grace Hopper this year, it's why I'm writing this email, and it's
why I hope you'll join me in making sure everyone on this team feels belonging
and can bring their authentic selves to work.

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
75



Respond to That Doc



.v 

George Sadller

Like many of you. I've watched the debate around the aforementioned execrable document blow up internally and externally
over the weekend. I want to make it clear that I am (and Google is) committed to diversity and inclusiveness as not only a
business imperative. but as the right thing to do. personally ?nd the content of that document notjust repulsive. but also
intellectually dishonest. lt propagates harmful and invalid stereotypes. makes bad assumptions about gender. and advances
a facetious view of engineering.

Building an inclusive environment means fostering a culture in which people of every identity feel safe and empowered. While
that includes those of varied political views. it cannot and does not extend to viewpoints that actively run contrary to safety
and inclusion. Neither misogyny. racism nor intolerance are ?political views".

do not accept the notion that suitability of women for careers in tech needs to be discussed. debated. questioned.
contested. or argued. 
-- dgentry@, on Twitter. 2017-08-06

One way or the other. Google is changing. Let?s make sure it's for the better.

I encourage folks who are looking to learn more to read up on the Paradox of Tolerance, and the dangers of tolerating
intolerance. Former Googler Yonatan Zunger also wrote a good p=ece on this.

Finally, to all my you are wanted. You are valued. You - needed. You are critical to our success.

- George. SRE

And as for its impact on you: Do you understand that at this point. I cottld not
in good conscience assign anyone to wot with you? I certainly couldn't assign
any women to deal with this. a good number of the people you might have to
work with may simply punch you in the face. and even it' there were a group of
like-minded individuals I could put you with. Nobody would be able to
collulmr'utc with (Item. You created a textlmok hostile workplace

enyi ron ment.

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
76

Sitaramlyer googlecom

Management, FFS please stop pacifying. and take an actual position to stop this
madness right now.

It's nice that we are all inclusive and happy people, and glad we're not
"encouraging' the viewpoint, but WHAT HAPPENS when someone pushes a
horrible, bigoted essay that causes widespread hurt? Any consequences?
Nothing? Which is it? Because if we don't take a position, then good people will
leave. Because the bar to whatever one can say and get away with has just been
significantly lowered, so what's next -- something far more dangerous? And the
only people working for us then are the people who are ok with that? Where's the
line - is it not this document? What will you do about it? What values does the
company hold AND IS WILLING TO 

- Yesterday, 5:39 PM

Google'd 'Big Five Personality Differences Male Female' terminology) and nearly every top result
backed the offensive claims of Neuroticism Agreeableness (mean not absolute) differences by gender. ls
Search wrong? Should we link to academic ?ndings that may support incorrect stereotypes?

Context



318

Anonymous
Today, 1:00 AM

We've seen:

- Sudar's email calling out female stereotypes in the memo, but not male stereotypes

- perf handout stereotyping whites

- co-workers saying "it's not sexism racism if it's against males whites".

What can we do to communicate to everyone that white male stereotypes are also hurtful?

a 0

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
77

. John Olson google.com Aug 4, 2 FM 

I want to say something clever about pc-considered-harmful. but mostly l'm just
disgusted and angry. If Google's mission is to "organize the world's information
and make it universally accessible and useful," how the heck will we do that if we
only hire straight white men? That's a really weird, biased minority of humanity
with no access to substantial chunks of the world's information. I am proud to
work for a company that has acknowledged its own biases, and is actively
working to correct the biases that have kept women and people of colour out of
the tech industry. I think Google's policies are some of the best things
about this company. I want more women, and more people of colour, and more
(did I miss anyone?) people and more differently-abled people and
more diversity and variety in my colleagues every day, and I will work to help
make that happen through recruiting and hiring and training and mentoring and
promotion.

 

 

Liz Fong-Jones googlecom  

Please reach out to me if you have been subject to retaliatory 'reverse
discrimination" complaints to HR for speaking up against Damore et. al.

l'm trying to put together an escalation. And if you were told you're gagged about
it, and are an individual contributor in the US, said gagging is not valid because
of NLRB rules about protected concerted activity regarding working conditions.
80 you can still talk to me, another individual contributor in the US.

+1 <2

Restricted to google com - View 

Liz Fang-Jones +4
I do not advise directly replying to this post or otherwise
somewhere where retaliatory actors could see)

+1

 

 

 

Googler reactions to the Damore memo
78

0 Andrew Bunner googlecom 
D.

James Damore has really gone out of his way to show the world just how
unemployable he is. I hope for him that he grows up and develops some
measure of empathy. A long road given how far he's dug his heels in.

Originally shared by Ashleigh Rentz - 3 comments

There are racist people working at Google.
There are sexist people working at Google.
There are anti-Semitic people working at Google.

There are homophobic people working at Google.
There are Islamophobic people working at Google.
There are transphobic people working at Google.

Racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, lslamophobia, and transphobia are
not opinions; they are anti-values. We must reinforce our company's culture by
openly and loudly rejecting those anti-values.

Googlers should not feel comfortable holding any of those anti-values here. If
Googlers express those anti-values, then those anti-values become part of our
shared culture. The paradox of tolerance tells us that we cannot tolerate
intolerance unless we accept that intolerance has a place here.

 

 

Appendix
79

 



?x 

Other recl Ients:

 

I happen to be visiting ZRl-l this week. and I've made use of the gender neutral rooms a number of times when I happened to be in the area
of them.

Somewhat concerningiy I notice this of?ce has a habit of making single-stall women's restrooms that are also wheel-chair access restrooms.
with no wheel-chair access in the "men's" restrooms (which are illustrated with a droid with a mustache). I really ?nd the signage odd here.

I appreciate the gender neutral restrooms. I really hope someday we can get all restrooms changed to gender neutral. and put this signage
confusion behind us.

On a less happy note. from my own experiences I can say a completion conversion to gender neutral restrooms can't come soon enough - in
KIR at the start of my transition when I started using the women's restroom (wearing strictly femme clothing) in CZ and I had one instance of
a woman confronting me saying this is the ladies room (to which I answered and she looked kind of indignant and continued to give
me stares on later times if we encounter eachother (one of these days I might report that but my memory for names is terrible). a couple other
times I've seen a woman come in and see me and then turn around and flee at high speed back out the door and look confusedly at
the door signage and then wander off (presumably to seek another restroom). and once in a while I still get a bewildered look from people I
haven't met before that turns more cordial after a delay. These experiences have added to my PTSD and I still get ?ashbacks and twinges of
fear now and then in that restroom that I use multiple times per day. I want to see an end to that judgmental awkwardness. especially for
genderqueer folk who rarely conform enough to ?t any binary expectations of cis folks.

 

 

 

In the women's bathroom just now, a Googler was changing her baby girl's
diaper when another Googler came in and said to the baby, "Oh look at you with
those big eyes! That must be why all the guys like you! You're such a ?irt!"

I quietly pointed out to the second person that it's inappropriate to sexualize an
infant, and that her comments reinforced sexist and heterosexist norms.

I'm sharing this because it was so blatant, because it happened at Google and
involved only Googlers (except for the baby), and as a reminder that bias is
pervasive in our culture.

 

Appendix
80

poly-discuss 
Outing yourself?

posts by 36 a.itt?.ors 

Hi.

I'm a Noogler (started Monday) and I was wondering what has worked for outing yourself as poly? I've been with my wife 23 years and my
other partner 12 years so when people talk family It?s natural for me to mention either or both.

In past jobs I've tried two strategies both of which are sub optimal.
1) The "just tell people" option. This feels like it's often TMI (insert Vegan Cross-fit joke here)

2) Just talk about my wife and partner as the conversation seems appropriate and wait until somebody asks ?you talk about you wife and your
partner which is it?? - this one feels like it leads to gossip.

Anybody have better ideas?

-
a ?e

I usually go with option 2 and find an opportunity to say something more explicit to the people work with most frequently. 'l'm
crashing at the office tonight because my wife is having her boyfriend over and I wanted to give them the house."

 

The "worst" reaction I ever got was "Oh. You might want to be careful who you tell." followed by some confused but earnest questions.

[Everyone-americas] An invitation: Celebrating Black history advancing racial a

jus?ce

David Drummond 2/22/16 ?x Reply to all 

to  e'i 
INTERNAL ONLY
Hi everyone.

Three years ago I led a lloodie March at TGIF to bring awareness to the killing of Trayvon Martin. and several months
have now gone by since (iooglers around the world e\pr'cssed their solrdarrtv for Victims ofracially-motivated violence in the
US. These calls to action have resulted in important initiatives within the company to advance racial justice. including ?55
million in tundra-a from (ioogleorg for racial justice innovators. but there's more that (ioogle can do.

In lieu of TGIF this week, we?ll use the Thursday time slot to continue this Important discussion about racial
justice and to honor Black History Month. Live out of Charlie's in Mountain View. we'll host Bryan Stevenson, a
renowned civil rights lawyer challenging racial bias in our criminal justice system. Bryan has won landmark cases before the
Supreme (?ourt and is a moving speaker--his 'l'lzll Talk has eanied nearly 3 million views. and he was a favorite at Zeitgeist.
We'll also hear some exciling updates from Googleorg on our racial justice portfoiio, and from the Black Googler
Network and Diversity team.

Just after the program. BGN is hosting a celebration with live performances. a drum circle, music and delicious food
before and after the event. Everyone is invited--and encouragedl~to join in on the celebration.

(ioogiers and TVCs can attend the program. and we need everyone to keep the content strictly con?dential within (Boogie. If
you're not based in Mountain View. we?d love for you to participate as well. The livestream will be available to all.
including a video recording after the event. and we encourage you to set up watch parties in your local offices. See
below for more details.

 

 

Appendix
81

[Googlers-us] A Conversation with Van Jones and Race@ panelists

Davld Drummond <dawddrummond@google.com> 12/5/16 ?x Reply to all

to 

Hi everyone,



A couple of weeks ago. we announced Race@. Google's initiative to address race and racial justice issues. As the

executive sponsor of the Race@ speaker series. Decoding Race. I'm excited that we are taking these important
steps to have more open and constructive conversations on race.

I'll be hosting Van Jones for a Fireside Chat on Monday. Dec. 12 at 10am in Charlie?s Cafe. Following this chat. I will
moderate a panel on programming and prejudice, with Bradley Horowitz. Nancy Douvon. Medan Rose Dickey. and

Anil Dash. Details are already on your calendars.

You can join us in person in Charlie's or watch via our Iivestream from your desk or in one of the Viewing rooms.
We'll also leave time for so add your questions to the dog.

Please know that Decoding Race Is just one step in raising our awareness about race; the next step in Race@ is to

embark on a journey to learn more about race. with courses we will make available in Grow in 2017. Stay updated
by signing up for alerts from the Race@ team here.

 

 

?t #Theldesofl'rump: Postcard Writing Party in SFO (March 13, 12 pm PT)



Hi all.

Mar 10

I?m participating in #TheldesofT rump. a national movement to send POTUS a postcard on March 15 expressing opposition to him (movement statement below my

sig).

I?ve grabbed a room in SFO-Spear (Judah on the 5th ?oor) on Monday, March 13 from 12-1 pm PT for a postcard writing party and hope some folks can come

write one!
I'll provide the postcards and the stamps (I've got about 50-ish). You just bring your woke selves. 

Thanks.
Jen

We the people. in vast numbers, from all comers of the world. will overwhelm the man with his unpopulan?ty and failure. We will show the media and the polih'cians
what standing with him and against us means. And most importantly. we will bury the White House post office in pink slips. all informing Donnie that he 's ?red.
Each of us every protester from every march. each congress calling citizen. every boycotter. volunteer. donor, and petition signer? if each of us writes even a

single postcard and we put them all in the mail on the same day. March 15th. well: you do the math.

No alternative fact or Russian translation will explain away our record?breaking. of?cially-veri?able. warehouse-?lling flood of fury. Hank Aaron currently holds the

record for fan mail. having received 900.000 pieces in a year. We're setting a new record: over a million pieces in a day. with not a single nice thing to say.

 

 

Appendix
82

i} Anti-Trump protest



If you support Trump. or you don't live 'reasonably close' to SF. you can stop reading now.

If you can?t stand Trump. read on!
Fellow members of the Herschel team,

I cordially invite you to this:

 

Exercise your 13! Amendment nights
SF City 

To print your own copy of this sign. 

 

Event page 

 

If your stomach turns when you consider a Trump presidency. I urge you to not let this moment pass quietly.

Appendix
83

 Tim Chevalier

Alternate proposal: moratorium on hiring white cis
heterosexual abled men who aren't abuse survivors. 0

?originally shared:

On Googler Entitlement:

work in CorpEng, hence on a project for Googlers (http://
Since I joined this project my opinion of
the average Googler is getting worse and worse. Googlers
are a bunch of spoiled brats. The amount of entitlement

that some Googlers express in their feedback to our project
is sometimes really absurd. Our project being called
"obnoxious" is just one example. Another one are people
assuming that they basically own meeting rooms and we
are the baddies by pointing out how wasteful they use them.

I often wonder what would help to adjust Googlers'
entitlement. My suggestion is the following: I don't think
we should hire anyone directly from university. Everyone
joining Google should at least have had to work in some
shitty normal company for at least half a year. I am pretty
sure after that, most people would appreciate what they
have here much more (and that includes appreciation for
their colleagues and what their colleagues work on). And
for those colleagues that are already here I propose an

 

Appendix
84


Biggest pay gap in America: Computer programmers

25 posts my authors 

http.= ram ?1813/

Life is sweet for computer programmers. Companies crave their coding skills and will do anything to attrac
Tahoe.

But being computer programmer is even sweeter if you have a dick.
That's the obvious verdict from a report released Wednesday by job recruiting site Glassdoor, which exam

Glassdoor's "Demystifying the Gender Pay Gap" report concludes that, when it comes to women's pay, co
same job -- and the same education, years of experience and age, among other factors.

don't think there are any examples of technical jobs where there is a pay advantage for women.?

. .n -i
H7 "r  tr?, at

 

 

 

The advantage of terms like "diversity" and ?unconscious bias" is that they're easier for people to accept than older terms like 'prejudice' or
?white supremacist patriarchy". but if we lose sight of the fact that these really do mean the same thing. then we will fail to fix the problem.

 

Date: Mon. Jan 9.2017 at 5:52 PM
Subject: Talks at Google 8. Race@ present I Decoding Race Series
To: everyone-cam 

lli Cambridge.

On behalt'of the Talks at Google and Racel?u teams I'd like to invite you to a Decoding Race talk titled ?The
Responsibility and Role of White People in Responding to Racism."

I'll be hosting the talk on January 18 here in the Cambridge of?ce as part of l-part series. and I hope that you?ll
join us for what promises to be an enlightening and empowering conversation about race that centers on white racial
identity.

To help lead the discussion. we'll bejoined by award-winning national and local race experts and leaders 'l?im Wise.
Dr 1.1 Martin and Michael Patrick MacDonald. We'll discuss how white Googlers may want to be a part of the

 

 

solution. and how to confront their fears of being seen as racist. We'll also talk about ways to grapple with race and
its intersections. whether your experience is currently centered around ally-ship. colorblindness. or thinking that race

is not a signi?cant factor in people?s lives. strongly encourage Googlers to come with an open mind. an appetite to

learn. and willingness to contribute during the 

 

 

Appendix
85

Decoding Race Cambridge

- Today. 1 00 AM

Not a question. but I feel like the moderator just cut off Dr. Martin.

a 

. Tog-3y, 3-343 Alvl

No question, just a quick kudos to Tim Wise for teaching me more
about the history of racism in 3 minutes than a semester long
class could have. Just bought your book.

a:

Today. ?2 7 l3 Alv?i

We didn't really talk about white fragility in the race discussion.

How can we address the notion in the title of this talk, "white tears?,
and how to check your privilege and emotion at the door as a white
person when you want to engage and support movements,
protests, conversations on race?

a

 

Appendix
86

goog.e.com

I'm planning to go to the "Dear White People" screening director Thursday
at 5:30. I don't know who I'm going with, so if you're going or thinking of going,
let me know!

"Dear White People" Advance Movie Screening Director


 

Go gle

"Dear White People" Advance Movie Screening 
Director 

F'io?u'w! u! .

Vain?: 

Voi?r 'N?uilfc [WW-{iv-

Vuln urgfvi'. I. (maul 4-in-2! :ar 

:tw Thuitdaf. '3 1(415 8 75pm

i Nation '7 In l-w 'z-h?vwlru? Erlu?. i133 (A ?ail-:1 

l'mla: Lila-21min! 

Mr Drum-v.? m- r?nrn 

9.96:4 - II l'1~ 'ii4i I

Tim Chevalier +1
I would also like to state a boundary that if this thread

becomes centered on how white men feel about being called

sexist and how white people in general feel about being called
racist, I will mute notifications. it's up to +Colin how
to moderate threads on his statuses, but that is my boundary.

 

Appendix
87

Christopher Davis google.com

It's time again forthe too-frequently?needed reminder that "cargo cult
programming" is a problematic phrase that is both racist in origin and often
insulting in use.

If you think code is being unnecessarily repeated, say so in those words. It's
best to do so while offering a solution for removing the redundancy, since the
original author may not be aware of the best ways to reuse code and/or
definitions in a given language. (This particularly goes for things like GCL, where
I've managed to break things more than once while trying to limit redundancy.)

 

 

 

Living as a plural being 

File Edit View Insert Tools Help [19mm 
a A
Pronouns and forms of address
Plural They pronouns: Generally plural beings prefer they or you&/your&
pronouns, and self-address as we/our. But many of us are stealth (as noted,

1?


 

 

 

1.5% of the population have DID which is a subset of Plurality).
General examples of 'not okay' etiquette around plural beings:

0 Questions about 'integration'; healing trauma splits is a private matter, and
beings may be unable to combine headmates, co-conscious is an alternative.

0 Addressing any one headmate in particular; we're all listening!

Assumptions that we're mentally damaged; actually we're happier this way.

Generally?prefers that we go by She/Herll as if singlet, as a social victory in our transition. We're kind of curious about getting people to accept plural TheyNVe
terminology but haven't pressed for it, We have however observed that our coworker who is non-binary has not had an over1y dif?cult time getting singular They pronouns
from Googlers who are familiar with them. but it doesn't seem to be a default response in society.