Google now sued by fired engineer from other end of political spectrum

After the National Labor Relations ruled Google Inc. did not break labor law by firing former engineer James Damore for his posts on an internal message board, another lawsuit has been filed with similar accusations but from an ideologically opposite perspective.

According to the new suit, filed Wednesday in San Francisco County Superior Court, another former Google engineer, Tim Chevalier, says he was fired for posts critical of Damore.

Damore was fired last August after posting his opinion that Google held an internal bias and created a hostile environment against politically conservative employees and white men. Damore also theorized that women are underrepresented in Silicon Valley because of biological differences between women and men. Damore sued the company for discrimination in January. Damore et. al, v. Google Inc., 18-CV321529 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct., filed Jan. 8).

Damore also filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board, which he dropped in January. But the board issued the memo anyway last week, stating Google did not violate labor law in his firing.

Damore's attorney, Harmeet K. Dhillon of Dhillon Law Group, said the memo has no legal significance to Damore's ongoing lawsuit, since he dismissed the complaint voluntarily. "It was sort of drive-by commentary," she said, adding that the suit has received interest from numerous unnamed potential plaintiffs.

Cameron Fox of Paul Hastings LLP, who is representing Google in the Damore suit, said, "We are gratified that the NLRB general counsel found that Google acted lawfully in not allowing this employee to create a hostile work environment."

Meanwhile, Chevalier said in his lawsuit that he was fired in response to posts he made on Google's employee social networking platforms criticizing content he perceived as discriminatory and offensive. Chevalier said he is transgender, queer and disabled, which the suit says places him in an extreme minority in the company. Chevalier v. Google, Inc., CGC-18-564473 (S.F. County Super. Ct., filed Feb. 21, 2018).

"He was explicitly told his termination was the result of his posts essentially calling out other messages and hosts that were indicative of white supremacy or racist and sexist beliefs," said Chevalier's attorney, David A. Lowe of Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe LLP.

Among the specifically cited posts by Chevalier was an email responding to Damore's memo which called it misogynistic and positing that "white boys" such as Damore are raised with an undue sense of privilege.

Lowe said that while both suits raise the issue of discrimination, they rest on opposite ends of an ideological spectrum.

"I definitely look at that as the opposite in the sense that while there's a similar issue with how Googlers are using the internal messaging, ours is that they're being used against people protected by anti-discrimination laws," he said.

Jack Schaedel of Scali Rasmussen said comparing the cases is a fallacy not because of political differences, but factual ones. Damore was fired as a form of damage control when his memo was leaked, while Chevalier was for spending too much time on political activism and going too far with it, he said.

"While an employee typically cannot be disciplined for lawful off-duty conduct, or for holding certain political views, Chevalier may have been terminated for spending time engaging in political-social activity when he should have been working," Schaedel said. "Additionally, the content of many of the posts he describes in his complaint appears to be specifically targeted at other employees, and critical of groups, ironically, possibly creating a hostile working environment for them."

Wendy Lane of Greenberg Glusker Fields Claman & Machtinger LLP, who is not involved in either case against Google, said that internal posting boards present a thin line for companies to walk.

"Often it doesn't matter what end of the spectrum the speech lies on, the result will be the same," she said. "In some cases, the employer could be in much hotter water if they don't uniformly apply their policy."

Since the boards are designed for use on company time, Lane added that it creates another level of liability because heated discussions can escalate quickly.

"They're saying, 'Name-calling of sorts to make your point is not something that we allow here. You, stop calling all women biologically unsuited, and you, stop calling that man a white boy'," she said.

Whether such platforms create inherent problems or not, Lowe said his aim is not to see them dismantled, simply more responsibly managed.

"I think the main thing would be to ensure that the messaging systems that exist are not being used to attack or harass vulnerable, underrepresented groups at the company and to make sure when employees stand up against that there's not retaliation against them for doing so," he said.

Google spokeswoman Gina Scigliano said in an e-mail, "An important part of our culture is lively debate. But like any workplace, that doesn't mean anything goes. All employees acknowledge our code of conduct and other workplace policies, under which promoting harmful stereotypes based on race or gender is prohibited.... We always make our decision without any regard to the employee's political views."