‘Google Fired Me For Not Rejecting White & Asian Job Applicants,’ Ex-Employee Alleges

[Swordsmyth]

Google is reportedly being sued by a former recruiter who claims he was dismissed for not rejecting white and Asian male job applicants.
It’s alleged the company instigated a policy to further workforce diversity.
Recruitment specialist Arne Wilberg, an employee at Google and its YouTube unit for nine years as a contractor and employee, filed a lawsuit in California, according to Bloomberg (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-01/google-sued-by-ex-recruiter-over-alleged-anti-white-asian-bias). The suit reportedly claims that his employment was terminated after he complained to human resources that Google discriminated against white and Asian men in favor of applicants who were Hispanic, African American or female. It’s also alleged that management deleted emails and other records about diversity requirements late last year.

“We will vigorously defend this lawsuit. We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,” a Google spokesperson told RT.com, adding that the company is unapologetic about hiring a wide group of qualified candidates as it helps the tech giant “build better products.”

More at: https://www.infowars.com/google-fired-me-for-not-rejecting-white-asian-job-applicants-ex-employee-alleges/

[timosman]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?519891-Google-Sued-by-Ex-Recruiter-Alleging-Anti-White-Asian-Bias

[Superfluous Man]

This guy refused to do what his employer hired him to do and thinks he shouldn't have gotten fired?

[timosman]

This guy refused to do what his employer hired him to do and thinks he shouldn't have gotten fired?

Exactly, what was his problem? The company owns him and he should have kept his mouth shut and kiss ass like everybody else. Ahhhh, people these days. Some even dare to talk about this thing called ethics. What a bunch of morons. :cool:

[specsaregood]

This guy refused to do what his employer hired him to do and thinks he shouldn't have gotten fired?

Which is worse: a unjust law or an unjust law applied unequally to all?

[Superfluous Man]

Exactly, what was his problem? The company owns him and he should have kept his mouth shut and kiss ass like everybody else. Ahhhh, people these days. Some even dare to talk about this thing called ethics. What a bunch of morons. :cool:

He doesn't have to keep his mouth shut. He can tell anyone who wants to listen (which is pretty much nobody) all about how Google hired him to do work he didn't want to do. But he has no cause for suing them. If he doesn't want the job, he doesn't have to take it. But he has no right to try to force them to hire him to do work that's different from what they want to hire him to do.

[timosman]

He doesn't have to keep his mouth shut. He can tell anyone who wants to listen (which is pretty much nobody) all about how Google hired him to do work he didn't want to do. But he has no cause for suing them. If he doesn't want the job, he doesn't have to take it. But he has no right to try to force them to hire him to do work that's different from what they want to hire him to do.

My point exactly. He can not expect the company to give him work that does not cross some imaginary ethical boundaries. The real loyalty is measured when unethical requests are being made like taking care of that body in the CEOs car. This is how true leaders are being made. :cool:

[Swordsmyth]

He doesn't have to keep his mouth shut. He can tell anyone who wants to listen (which is pretty much nobody) all about how Google hired him to do work he didn't want to do. But he has no cause for suing them. If he doesn't want the job, he doesn't have to take it. But he has no right to try to force them to hire him to do work that's different from what they want to hire him to do.

They broke a law they would merrily shove down our throats, any rock will do to squash a slug.

[Superfluous Man]

They broke a law they would merrily shove down our throats, any rock will do to squash a slug.

Right. Let's see how that holds up in court.

And whose throats do you mean? The throats of those who would like to discriminate against non-whites in their hiring? If so, please do not say "our." Because "we" do not go along with you in the desire to do that.

[timosman]

They broke a law they would merrily shove down our throats, any rock will do to squash a slug.

You have to admit the company was in a difficult position for no fault of their own. They had to please the federal diversity regulators plus a bunch of internal diversity maniacs. The CEO with his non-existent spine was no match for a bunch of SJWs. His copycat strategy does not work well when he finds himself in an uncharted territory. Well, at least the legal team will be busy. They are one of the most diverse teams in the entire company. I am sure they can put this case to rest. :cool:

[PierzStyx]

Exactly, what was his problem? The company owns him and he should have kept his mouth shut and kiss ass like everybody else. Ahhhh, people these days. Some even dare to talk about this thing called ethics. What a bunch of morons. :cool:

There is no ethical issue here. The owners of companies have the right to institute whatever hiring policies they wish. It doens't harm anyone or their rights, the owners have the rights to restrict access to any property they own, and the owners have the right to make any contracts which both parties voluntarily agree to. What ethical stance is exactly being violated here?

[PierzStyx]

This guy refused to do what his employer hired him to do and thinks he shouldn't have gotten fired?

Don't you understand that racial hiring policies and government intervention in business is only right when it benefits white men? It is totally right then but if you take the exact action any other way it is completely wrong and evil. Get your Marxist identity politics on the right Leftist side here! /s

Seriously, people wouldn't understand liberty and property rights if it busted them on the nose.

[Swordsmyth]

Right. Let's see how that holds up in court.
The law prohibits employment discrimination based on race.


And whose throats do you mean? The throats of those who would like to discriminate against non-whites in their hiring? If so, please do not say "our." Because "we" do not go along with you in the desire to do that.
The throats of anyone who chose not to hire a person of a minority race for some valid reason but was then sued by that person who claimed they were not employed because of their race.
And much as I disagree with those who would exercise their rights in such a fashion you are not much of a libertarian if you don't think people of any race have a right to hire people based on their race if they choose, they will suffer the economic consequences of such non-meritocratic decisions.

[Swordsmyth]

Don't you understand that racial hiring policies and government intervention in business is only right when it benefits white men? It is totally right then but if you take the exact action any other way it is completely wrong and evil. Get your Marxist identity politics on the right Leftist side here! /s

Seriously, people wouldn't understand liberty and property rights if it busted them on the nose.

I want ant-discrimination laws done away with, but until they are the libs don't get a free pass to use them against us.

[Swordsmyth]

There is no ethical issue here. The owners of companies have the right to institute whatever hiring policies they wish. It doens't harm anyone or their rights, the owners have the rights to restrict access to any property they own, and the owners have the right to make any contracts which both parties voluntarily agree to. What ethical stance is exactly being violated here?
The ethical principle that says you don't get to ignore laws you impose on others.

[Superfluous Man]

The law prohibits employment discrimination based on race.

And Google will just show that they obviously aren't discriminating against whites and Asians as proven by their overrepresentation in the company in comparison with the population as a whole, so that their affirmative action plans are within the requirements of the law.

[Swordsmyth]

And Google will just show that they obviously aren't discriminating against whites and Asians as proven by their overrepresentation in the company in comparison with the population as a whole, so that their affirmative action plans are within the requirements of the law.

There is plenty of evidence of deliberate discrimination.

[timosman]

And Google will just show that they obviously aren't discriminating against whites and Asians as proven by their overrepresentation in the company in comparison with the population as a whole, so that their affirmative action plans are within the requirements of the law.

I am curious how's RPF diversity quota on morons? Do you think we could lose one?:cool:

[juleswin]

There is no ethical issue here. The owners of companies have the right to institute whatever hiring policies they wish. It doens't harm anyone or their rights, the owners have the rights to restrict access to any property they own, and the owners have the right to make any contracts which both parties voluntarily agree to. What ethical stance is exactly being violated here?

Technically the company wanted him to break the law in order to perform his job. He basically said no and he was fired. That should be some sort of a crime and maybe reason for a lawsuit.

I think he has a case. I can't believe they didn't try to settle before this became public news.

[AZJoe]

If he doesn't want the job, he doesn't have to take it. But he has no right to try to force them to hire him to do work that's different from what they want to hire him to do.

Actually he has many causes of action under the law. Google broke laws. Google fired him for asking Google not to break the laws. He has multiple causes of action.
Whether government should be telling business who they should or shouldn't hire is another question, but until Congress does away with the so called Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the EEOC and OCR and the myriad of other laws and regulations, he has causes of action.

[juleswin]

And Google will just show that they obviously aren't discriminating against whites and Asians as proven by their overrepresentation in the company in comparison with the population as a whole, so that their affirmative action plans are within the requirements of the law.
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe a policy like that could work. If u have ever seen a video of google offices, they are filled with whites and Asians.

[specsaregood]

Technically the company wanted him to break the law in order to perform his job. He basically said no and he was fired. That should be some sort of a crime and maybe reason for a lawsuit.

I think he has a case. I can't believe they didn't try to settle before this became public news.

https://www.californialegaladvocates.com/blog/2015/11/can-an-employee-be-fired-for-refusing-to-break-the-law.shtml


In California, an employee is protected from retaliation if he or she refuses to break the law. There are several requirements for protection under existing anti-retaliation and whistleblower legislation. First, the employee must engage in protected activity. Protected activity can be refusing to engage in activity that the employee reasonably believes will violate state or federal law. Protected activity can also include reporting to management, or an outside agency, a reasonable belief that the company or other employees are engaging in activity that breaks the law. Other sections of the labor code provide protection to employees who report unsafe working conditions.

Secondly, an employee must be able to show adverse employment action. This is often times being fired, but it can also include demotions. Finally, the employee would have to prove a connection or link between his or her engagement in a protected activity and the adverse employment action. The protected activity must be, at a minimum, a substantial motivating factor in the employee's adverse employment action in order for a claim to be made.

[AZJoe]

From The Register (https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/03/02/google_recruiter_fired/?utm_referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fzen.yandex.com):

[Google], “has had and implemented clear and irrefutable policies, memorialized in writing and consistently implemented in practice, of systematically discriminating in favor job applicants who are Hispanic, African American, or female, and against Caucasian and Asian men.” …

the manager of YouTube’s tech staffing management team, Allison Alogna, sent an email in March 2017 indicating that new level-three software engineering candidates – specifically, geeks with five years of experience or less – must be from “historically underrepresented groups.”

When presented with orders to cancel level-three software engineering interviews with anyone not either female, black, or Hispanic, and to purge applications from non-diverse employees in the hiring pipeline, Wilberg refused and faced retaliation as a result, it is claimed.

Wilberg, according to the lawsuit, “repeatedly told [his managers] that it was illegal to have such hiring quotas favoring certain groups based on race and gender, that it violated state and federal law, and that Google must immediately cease and desist from engaging, in such illegal hiring practices.” …

in response to Wilberg’s efforts to challenge the diversity scheme, Google “on occasion would circulate emails instructing its employees purge any and all references to the race/ gender quotas from its e-mail database in a transparent effort to wipe out any paper trail of Google’s illegal practices.”



Per (http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/03/02/lawsuit-youtube-hiring-excluded-white-and-asian-males-to-improve-diversity/)the lawsuit,

the company stopped hiring white and Asian male employees to technical roles at some point in 2017 to improve employee diversity rankings throughout the company. ... Google set quotas for the hiring of minorities at the company which resulted in discrimination against white and Asian male employees. ... YouTube recruiters were told to cancel interviews with applicants that weren’t female, black or Hispanic and to “purge entirely” any applications that did not fit those criteria. ...

One Google employee told Breitbart News, “Witch hunts are a well-known cultural problem at Google. The company is currently facing a Federal complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board in April for interfering with employees’ legal right to discuss ‘workplace diversity and social justice initiatives.’ ... Senior Vice President Urs Holzle and numerous managers in his organization actively stoked up witch hunts in 2015 and 2016 intended to muzzle low-level employees who raised concerns about the company’s practices.”

Wilberg ... faced discrimination from Google over his sex and race and retaliated against his complaints by firing him, violating antidiscrimination laws in the process. ... he made multiple complaints to managers about YouTube’s hiring process and escalated these complaints to superiors at Google before being fired last November. ... YouTube recruiters were told that they were expected to hire five new employees each. Each of these new employees allegedly must have been from an underrepresented group, and recruiters used what was known as a “diversity tracker” to keep a count of the number of minorities hired. ...

Wilberg’s lawsuit corroborates many claims made by ... James Damore. ...

[Superfluous Man]

On the other hand, I find it hard to believe a policy like that could work. If u have ever seen a video of google offices, they are filled with whites and Asians.

That's what overrepresentation means.

[Anti Federalist]

Technically the company wanted him to break the law in order to perform his job. He basically said no and he was fired. That should be some sort of a crime and maybe reason for a lawsuit.

I think he has a case. I can't believe they didn't try to settle before this became public news.

Well, how about that, I agree.

[specsaregood]

Well, how about that, I agree.

Let's hope he has evidence of:

in response to Wilberg’s efforts to challenge the diversity scheme, Google “on occasion would circulate emails instructing its employees purge any and all references to the race/ gender quotas from its e-mail database in a transparent effort to wipe out any paper trail of Google’s illegal practices.”

[Anti Federalist]

There is no ethical issue here. The owners of companies have the right to institute whatever hiring policies they wish. It doens't harm anyone or their rights, the owners have the rights to restrict access to any property they own, and the owners have the right to make any contracts which both parties voluntarily agree to. What ethical stance is exactly being violated here?

There most certainly is, Google ordered him, as part of his job, to violate federal law.

When he made that fact known, he was fired, a violation of state and federal law.


In California, an employee is protected from retaliation if he or she refuses to break the law. There are several requirements for protection under existing anti-retaliation and whistleblower legislation. First, the employee must engage in protected activity. Protected activity can be refusing to engage in activity that the employee reasonably believes will violate state or federal law.


Under the laws enforced by EEOC, it is illegal to discriminate against someone (applicant or employee) because of that person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. It is also illegal to retaliate against a person because he or she complained about discrimination, filed a charge of discrimination, or participated in an employment discrimination investigation or lawsuit.

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

https://www1.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/index.cfm?renderforprint=1

[Anti Federalist]

This guy refused to do what his employer hired him to do and thinks he shouldn't have gotten fired?

His employer hired him to recruit.

Not to discriminate, in violation of federal law.

You got hired to drive the garbage truck.

Not to made midnight runs to the river to dump toxic waste.

[kcchiefs6465]

The EEOC and NLRB ought be abolished.

Lol at the part of the previous "witch hunt" at Google the NLRB is investigating. Anyone not infected with the disease of communism would see it is the NLRB that participates in witchhunts.

What of when the EEOC investigates companies of hiring discrimination when no complaint has been levied and forces a company to prove a negative or defend themselves against possible thoughtcrime? Sounds like a witch hunt.

[Anti Federalist]

Look, I'm in favor of all these laws being repealed.

They're bullshit and we all know it.

But we are a tiny minority of freaks.

The vast bulk of AmeriKunts want and support these laws.

So if that is going to be the case, then they had god damned well better apply across the board, equally to all.

[Superfluous Man]

His employer hired him to recruit.

Not to discriminate, in violation of federal law.

You got hired to drive the garbage truck.

Not to made midnight runs to the river to dump toxic waste.

Then why did they fire him?

It looks pretty clear from the OP that administering affirmative action in his recruiting was part of his job. You can whine all you want about how you think that violates federal law. But it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that affirmative action is practiced in hiring all the time in this country, and accepted by courts as legal.

And why do you care about federal law anyway?

[Anti Federalist]

Then why did they fire him?

It looks pretty clear from the OP that administering affirmative action in his recruiting was part of his job. You can whine all you want about how you think that violates federal law. But it shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone that affirmative action is practiced in hiring all the time in this country, and accepted by courts as legal.

Because he didn't discriminate.

Maybe he's trying to prove a point.

What does this say?

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

[Superfluous Man]

Because he didn't discriminate.


Then it would stand to reason that what you're calling discriminating is what they hired him to do.

He refused to do what he was hired to do. So they fired him.


What does this say?

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

Not discriminating in every aspect of employment is pretty nonsensical. Don't you think?

[specsaregood]

Then it would stand to reason that what you're calling discriminating is what they hired him to do.


I would not be surprised if he employment agreement and company policy specifically says that he can't do that though or break laws.

[kcchiefs6465]

Look, I'm in favor of all these laws being repealed.

They're bullshit and we all know it.

But we are a tiny minority of freaks.

The vast bulk of AmeriKunts want and support these laws.

So if that is going to be the case, then they had god damned well better apply across the board, equally to all.
The board is full of a bunch of freaks who do not seek justice. They are looking to unionize. They will never equally apply the 'law.' It is always arbitrarily applied and enforced. You should expect nothing less from kangaroos.

In fact, the way they brought up the NLRB and mentioned it was to investigate a 'witchhunt' at Google, one in which stemmed from employee's feelings regarding diversity (of all things), leads me to believe this is a bunch of leftist bullshit.

How it probably happened:
Google employees got together on breaks and meals and discussed a lack of diversity in the workplace. Google erroneously thought they did not lose rights by hiring people and that they did not have to put up with workers conspiring against the employer on the employer's property. This caused a complaint to the NLRB whose worthless communist whores got wet at the idea of making a name for themselves against Google. Faced with the NLRB questioning the amount of diversity in the workplace and if employees were treated 'unfairly' under the 'law' Google probably made a stupid decision to appease the communists it employs and the communist NLRB. They said they're going to change the demographic of the company. They are going to embrace diversity. This led them to run afoul of a different communist posse, the EEOC.

How about this. The employees that needed more diversity-- they can fuck off and find another job. And the recruiter who cannot live with Google's hiring practices? He can do the same. And the 1,500 NLRB thought police? Well I doubt they've even worked a day in their life. Bunch of social science retards whoring for the government to write off student loan debt.

[Anti Federalist]

Not discriminating in every aspect of employment is pretty nonsensical. Don't you think?

What I think doesn't matter in this case.

What does the law say?

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

[Anti Federalist]

The board is full of a bunch of freaks who do not seek justice. They are looking to unionize. They will never equally apply the 'law.' It is always arbitrarily applied and enforced. You should expect nothing less from kangaroos.

Oh am I well aware of that.

I'm just in favor of clubbing the communists with their own stupid rules.

[Superfluous Man]

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

I highly doubt that. But even if the letter of the law did say that, it doesn't and couldn't work that way in practice.

[dannno]

And Google will just show that they obviously aren't discriminating against whites and Asians as proven by their overrepresentation in the company in comparison with the population as a whole, so that their affirmative action plans are within the requirements of the law.

Lol, you are thick.

[Madison320]

Which is worse: a unjust law or an unjust law applied unequally to all?

That's really the question here. I think it makes more sense to ignore a bad law as opposed to enforcing it equally, if enough people ignore it, maybe politicians will repeal it.

Plus I'm no good at 4D chess. If I'm opposed to a law, I don't want to have to support it because it's good strategy. I just want to oppose it.

[Madison320]

And whose throats do you mean? The throats of those who would like to discriminate against non-whites in their hiring? If so, please do not say "our." Because "we" do not go along with you in the desire to do that.

You don't support discrimination laws do you?

[timosman]

You don't support discrimination laws do you?

SM works in HR, so it's OK.:cool:

[dannno]

That's really the question here. I think it makes more sense to ignore a bad law as opposed to enforcing it equally, if enough people ignore it, maybe politicians will repeal it.

Plus I'm no good at 4D chess. If I'm opposed to a law, I don't want to have to support it because it's good strategy. I just want to oppose it.

I don't agree. If you don't apply bad laws equally, then there is no incentive to change the law because a much smaller portion of people are affected by it.

I'm not saying send a bunch more cops out to arrest white people for weed because of the discrepancy, I'm saying if a white person goes to court you treat them equally under the law.

What they are doing here is flipping google on it's head.. They made laws that were supposed to help other races, but if you can prove in court those laws are racist then it makes them more difficult to enforce on the whole. It neuters them.

[Superfluous Man]

You don't support discrimination laws do you?

No.

[Madison320]

I don't agree. If you don't apply bad laws equally, then there is no incentive to change the law because a much smaller portion of people are affected by it.

I'm not saying send a bunch more cops out to arrest white people for weed because of the discrepancy, I'm saying if a white person goes to court you treat them equally under the law.

What they are doing here is flipping google on it's head.. They made laws that were supposed to help other races, but if you can prove in court those laws are racist then it makes them more difficult to enforce on the whole. It neuters them.

Maybe you're right, I have to think about it. What if there's only a few "beneficial" violations of the bad law and mostly "harmful" violations. What if for every one gun store that discriminates against an 18 year old there's 1,000 businesses that are sued for bogus discrimination? Will the government or liberals care in that case?

But unequal enforcement bothers me too, so you may be right.

I can think of instances where it sure would help if congress had to enforce the bad laws ON THEMSELVES! Like the minimum wage for example, it would be nice if they didn't have unpaid interns. Or Obamacare.

[kcchiefs6465]

That's really the question here. I think it makes more sense to ignore a bad law as opposed to enforcing it equally, if enough people ignore it, maybe politicians will repeal it.

Plus I'm no good at 4D chess. If I'm opposed to a law, I don't want to have to support it because it's good strategy. I just want to oppose it.
Precedent established will be used against the good guys. Backlash from those negatively affected with further more laws.

Oppose on principle.

[Anti Federalist]

I highly doubt that. But even if the letter of the law did say that, it doesn't and couldn't work that way in practice.

That is not me saying that.

That's what the feds say.

[kcchiefs6465]

That is not me saying that.

That's what the feds say.
You need someone to pick up trash at 4 A.M. Monday through Saturday. They need a valid driver's license and 5 years of a clean driving record.

Discrimination?

Obviously (which was his point).

Legally you are unable to discriminate based on protected statuses. In practice, the EEOC circle jerks around possible discriminatory hiring practices where there was no victim. All the while they barely (if ever) investigate [possibly] legitimate cases of discrimination where there was a complaint.

The NLRB has a worse record. Them investigating over diversity concerns coupled with a complaint then of an order that diversity in the workplace be statistically improved.. You don't think they're related?

Fuck Google. I hope they go belly up. I also hope that their Compliance team can tie up so many resources of the NLRB and EEOC that they can quit harassing businesses.

[Madison320]

Precedent established will be used against the good guys. Backlash from those negatively affected with further more laws.

Oppose on principle.

I'm still undecided on this but if someone is going to support equal enforcement on a law that they oppose, they should make it very clear that they oppose the law.

[specsaregood]

Fuck Google. I hope they go belly up. I also hope that their Compliance team can tie up so many resources of the NLRB and EEOC that they can quit harassing businesses.

Its amusing that they are going out of their way to discriminate against the types of employees that made them a success. I can only dream that it makes them go bellyup.

[angelatc]

Don't you understand that racial hiring policies and government intervention in business is only right when it benefits white men? It is totally right then but if you take the exact action any other way it is completely wrong and evil. Get your Marxist identity politics on the right Leftist side here! /s

Seriously, people wouldn't understand liberty and property rights if it busted them on the nose.

They understand them. They just don't like them.

[Superfluous Man]

That is not me saying that.

That's what the feds say.

No it isn't. The feds regularly allow affirmative action hiring practices, and have been doing so for decades.

[Anti Federalist]

No it isn't. The feds regularly allow affirmative action hiring practices, and have been doing so for decades.

This is the official .gov website of the EEOC https://www1.eeoc.gov//laws/practices/index.cfm?renderforprint=1

It states the following:

Recruitment

It is also illegal for an employer to recruit new employees in a way that discriminates against them because of their race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.

And this:

The law forbids discrimination in every aspect of employment.

And also this:

an employer may not refuse to give employment applications to people of a certain race.

Now, is this website The Onion?

[timosman]

Looks like somebody painted themselves into a corner.:cool: