Google CEO Slams Memo On Gender As Employee Reportedly Fired

GOOGLE INCORPORATED IS PLANNING A SO-CALLED ALL HANDS MEETING THIS WEEK. ASSEMBLY IN THE ENTIRE SILICON VALLEY STAFF TO ADDRESS A CONTROVERSIAL MEMO IN THE FIRING OF THE CONTOUR DOSH CONTROVERSIAL MEMO WRITER. IT CHALLENGED THE DIVERSITY PROGRAMS MAKING CLAIMS AS WOMEN ARE MORE SUITED TO WORK IN SOCIAL AND ARTISTIC GUILT IN OUR NOSH NOT BIOLOGICALLY HIGH TECH. JOINING ME AS DAN EATON, A SPECIALIST IN BUSINESS LAW AND PARTNER AT BY TECH. GOOGLE SAYS IT FIRED THE SOFTWARE ENGINEER BECAUSE THE MEMO VIOLATED THE COMPANY'S CODE OF CONDUCT AND ADVANCED HARMFUL GENERAL DASHED GENDER STEREOTYPES. DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIRE AN EMPLOYEE ON THOSE GROUNDS?YES, LET'S MAKE AN ASSUMPTION HE WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE. AT WILL EMPLOYEE MEANS THAT GOOGLE HAS THE RIGHT TO FIRE THE EMPLOYEE FOR GOOD REASON OR NO REASON AT ALL. ON THE FACE OF IT, THEIR EXPLANATION FOR WHY THEY TERMINATED THE EMPLOYMENT WOULD BE LAWFUL.I'VE HEARD SOME PEOPLE SAY WHAT ABOUT HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS? THERE IS VERY LITTLE FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTION IN THE WORKPLACE?SURPRISINGLY WIDESPREAD MISCONCEPTION, THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION IS WHAT IS CALLED THE NEGATIVE RIGHT, TO SAY IT IS A RIGHT AGAINST INTRUSION BY THE GOVERNMENT AND DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE ACTORS. INTERESTINGLY, THE PRIVACY RATE IN CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN HELD TO APPLY TO PRIVATE AND PUBLIC ACTORS. GENERALLY SPEAKING, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT TO BE FREE OF GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE AND EXERCISE RIGHTS. THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING IN A PRIVATE WORKPLACE.THIS ENGINEER IS APPARENTLY CONSIDERING SUING GOOGLE OVER HIS FIRING. DO YOU THINK HE HAS A CASE?I LOOKED AT THE BASIS ON WHICH HE IS CONSIDERING THIS, I HAVE WRITTEN ON THIS ON CNBC.COM AND ONE OF THE ISSUES HE IS RAISING IS WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WAS THE FACT THAT AS A CONSERVATIVE AND IN A LIBERAL WORKPLACE I HAVE THE RIGHT TO WORK WITH MY COWORKERS TO IMPROVE WORKING CONDITIONS. THAT IS PROTECTED UNDER THE FEDERAL LABOR LAWS AND RELATIONS ACT IN GOOGLE COULDN'T FIRE ME FOR EXERCISING THAT RIGHT, WHICH HE DOES HAVE. WHAT GOOGLE'S RESPONSE TO THAT IS, IS THEY WERE NOT FIRING HIM FOR THAT REASON, THEY WERE FIRING HIM FOR UNPROTECTED ASPECTS. IN THAT MEMO. THEY HAVE CONCEDED THEIR ASPECTS, GOOGLE SAID THAT IS NOT WHAT MOTIVATED THEM IN THEIR MOTIVE MATTERS. THEIR INTENTION IS, THEY ACTED AS THEY DID TOWARDS THE ENGINEER NOT TO SILENCE A D CENTER BUT EXPEL A HARASSER.THAT BRINGS ME TO MY QUESTION, SOME EMPLOYEES AT GOOGLE ARE SAYING THIS MEMO CONSTITUTES A HARMFUL WORKPLACE ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM. GOOD THEY SUE?I'M NOT SURE THEY COULD FOR A COUPLE REASONS, ONE THEY ACTED QUICKLY, SECOND IT'S HARD TO SEE HOW THIS RISES TO THE LEVEL OF A PERVASIVE CONDUCT TO ALTER THE ENVIRONMENT WHICH IS WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR A CLAIM OF A LEGALLY ACTIONABLE SEXUAL HARASSMENT. GOOGLE IS AN AT-WILL EMPLOYER WHO WAS AFRAID TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST CONDUCT BY THE ENGINEER, SELLING SHORT OF LEGAL ACTION SEXUAL HARASSMENT. BUT IT WILL BE A HIGHER HURDLE IF THE WOMEN WANT TO SUE FOR CLAIMING THE MEMO ITSELF WHICH WAS A RUNOFF INCIDENT CONSTITUTED THE TYPE OF PERVASIVE CONDUCT WHICH CAN BE A RUNOFF INCIDENT DEPENDING ON THE NATURE. THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE LEGALLY ACTIONABLE SEXUAL HARASSMENT PARTICULARLY AGAINST THE COMPANY. BUT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW YOU CAN SUE THE INDIVIDUAL HARASSER. IT IS CONCEIVABLE THE WOMEN COULD SUE THE ENGINEER HIMSELF.YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER THIS MEMO DOES NOT EXIST IN A VACUUM. 80% OF TECH JOBS IN GOOGLE ARE HELD BY MEN, 75% HELD BY MEN, GOOGLE HAS BEEN ACCUSED OF SYSTEMATIC DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN BY A DEPARTMENT OF LABOR OFFICIAL AND NOW THIS MEMO. MY QUESTION IS, HOW COULD GOOGLE NOT FIRE THE SKY?THAT QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED, IT IS A TOUGH ONE, THEY WERE BETWEEN THE PROVERBIAL ROCK AND HARD PLACE. THERE WERE OTHER ACTIONS THAT THE COMPANY COULD HAVE TAKEN, BUT, GOOGLE CHOSE TO TERMINATE THIS AT WILL EMPLOYEE AND THE ENGINEER WILL HAVE A TOUGH HURDLE TRYING TO SHOW THAT GOOGLE WAS MOTIVATED BY THEIR PROTECTED ASPECTS OF THIS MEMO AND NOT THE UNPROTECTED ASPECTS WHICH IS WHAT THE CEO CITED IN ANNOUNCING THE TERMINATION.IF YOU ARE ADVISING GOOGLE EXECUTIVES, HOW WOULD YOU TELL HIM HOW TO HANDLE THIS MATTER? WHAT WOULD YOU TELL HIM?WELL, MAKE SURE YOU ARE CLEAR AND CONSISTENT ABOUT THE REASONS FOR TERMINATING. THE CEO IN HIS MEMO TO ALL EMPLOYEES ISSUED YESTERDAY, SAID HE ACKNOWLEDGED THE RIGHT OF THE SOFTWARE ENGINEER AND OTHERS TO EXPRESS DISSENTING VIEWS. WHICH IS A RIGHT THEY HAVE. YOU CANNOT BE TERMINATED FOR DEVIATING FROM THE COMPANY'S POLITICAL ORTHODOX BUT HE SAID THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS WAS. IT WAS A VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF CONDUCT. THE KEY THING IS FOR THE DECISION-MAKERS, WHO MADE THE DECISION TO FIRE HIM. OTHER EMPLOYEES DO NOT MATTER, BUT TO BE CONSISTENT, THEY WERE MOTIVATED BY THE UNPROTECTED ASPECTS OF THE MEMO AND NOT THE PROTECTED ASPECTS OF THE MEMO. WHERE THAT ENDS UP WORKING OUT IN A LEGAL ACTION, WHO KNOWS.I HAVE BEEN SPEAKING WITH DAN EATON, THANK YOU SO MUCH.