Read the NLRB Memo Defending Google's Firing of James Damore
A six-page internal "advice" memo from the NLRB said Google did not violate labor law when it fired James Damore for writing a memo that argued in part that women were less fit than men for careers in tech.
February 16, 2018 at 12:51 PM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
Updated at 1:43 p.m. PST
Google Inc. did not violate federal labor law in firing an engineer who wrote a widely circulated memo that argued women were not as biologically fit as men for tech jobs, according to a National Labor Relations Board lawyer's memo that was disclosed on Feb. 15.
Former Google engineer James Damore filed a complaint with the labor board after he was terminated by the Mountain View, California-based company. Damore's memo, which went viral, called inclusion efforts an “ideological echo chamber where contrary views are shamed into silence.” The memo cemented an impression that tech has been and still is a white, male-dominated industry.
NLRB lawyer Jayme Sophir, associate general counsel in the agency's division of advice, concluded last month that Damore's memo contained both protected and unprotected speech but that Google terminated the engineer based on reasons not protected by the National Labor Relations Act. Sophir's memo, written to a regional director, was dated Jan. 16.
Damore's case was closed in January. Damore and other former Google employees filed a separate lawsuit, seeking class action status, against the company in Santa Clara Superior Court. Bay Area lawyer Harmeet Dhillon represents the employees in that case and served as Damore's attorney before the federal labor board.
Paul Hastings partner Al Latham in Los Angeles, a lawyer for Google, said in a statement: “We are gratified that the NLRB General Counsel found that Google acted lawfully in not allowing this employee to create a hostile work environment.” Paul Hastings partner Cameron Fox was also on the Google team at the NLRB.
Dhillon was not immediately reached for comment.
Damore's internal memo, which originally circulated among his co-workers, attempted to justify a gender gap in the tech industry in response to a series of companywide inclusion efforts to close it. The memo said “women on average are more prone to anxiety” and that women on average have more “neuroticism” and “lower stress tolerance.”
Google determined that certain portions of Damore's memo violated existing policies on harassment and discrimination. The company's HR manager, in justifying the termination, told Damore: “Your post advanced and relied on gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at Google as men. … I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men.”
Google said that its action against Damore was not based in any way on the parts of his memo that discuss training and programs offered by Google or about his expression of differing political views.
“Having a different political view is fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not,” Google said in a statement to Damore, according to the NLRB memo disclosed Friday.
The portions of Damore's manifesto that spoke of work conditions with his colleagues would be considered protected speech, according to the NLRB memo. The general counsel's office agreed with Google that the use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between men and women was discriminatory and not protected speech.
Sophir noted that two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration from Google after Damore's manifesto was spread widely.
Sophir added in her instruction to the regional director: “Employers have a strong interest in promoting diversity and encouraging employees across diverse demographic groups to thrive in their workplaces. In furtherance of these legitimate interests, employers must be permitted to 'nip in the bud' the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a 'hostile workplace,' rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action.”
Google chief executive Sundar Pichai, recently addressing Damore's firing, said he had no regrets about the decision itself but, rather, how he believes the decision has been interpreted.
“I regret that people misunderstand that we may have made this for a political belief one way or another,” Pichai said, according to a report in Verge, the tech publication. “It's important for the women at Google, and all the people at Google, that we want to make an inclusive environment.”
This report was updated with comment about the NLRB advice memo.
The NLRB advice memo is posted in full below:
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readElaine Darr Brings Transformation and Value to DHL's Business
PepsiCo's Legal Team Champions Diversity, Wellness, and Mentorship to Shape a Thriving Corporate Culture
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250