Writer

Matthew Bodie

Analyzing James Damore’s Employment-Related Claims against Google—Part Three

Analyzing James Damore’s Employment-Related Claims against Google—Part Three

James Damore, the Google employee fired for his internal memo on diversity programs and “monocultures,” has raised claims of interference with protected concerted activity as well as retaliation for his complaints about Google’s allegedly discriminatory policies.  But Damore and his attorneys have charged Google with a third potential motive and attendant violation: firing him for his political and ideological views.  A claim oriented around political, ideological, or viewpoint discrimination may seem to fit most naturally with Damore’s memo, as it criticizes the ideological culture at Google and presses for more free-flowing discussion and debate, particularly around issues of workplace diversity.

Analyzing James Damore’s Employment-Related Claims against Google—Part Two

Analyzing James Damore’s Employment-Related Claims against Google—Part Two

After Google terminated James Damore for his now infamous memo, he claimed that he was fired for concerted activities protected under the National Labor Relations Act (discussed in Part One) as well as for pointing out “potentially illegal policies/behavior.”  This post examines whether Damore might have a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for retaliation for opposing his employer’s (allegedly) discriminatory HR policies.  (As noted in the first post, this analysis is inevitably premature, as further facts may come to light that could dramatically change these claims.)

Analyzing James Damore’s Employment-Related Claims against Google: Part One

Analyzing James Damore’s Employment-Related Claims against Google: Part One

When James Damore wrote his internal memo against Google’s diversity policies, was he making an impassioned plea on behalf of politically and ideologically charged ideas?  Calling on his fellow workers to fight for changes to company diversity policies?  Taking a stand against HR practices that illegally discriminate against protected classes of employees?  Was his manifesto all, some, or none of these things?