Tim Chevalier v. Google, Inc (2018) -

[neger psykolog]

Tim Chevalier is a former Google site engineer who has filed a lawsuit on 21st February, 2018 against Google Inc in the Superior Court of the State of California alleging wrongful dismissal.

The suit (linked below) includes 7 causes of action:

• Retaliation In Violation of Lab. Code, § 1101
  • Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids or prevents employees from engaging or participating in politics, or controls or directs, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.
• Retaliation In Violation of Lab. Code, § 1102
  • Labor Code section 1102 prohibits employers from using the of threat of discharge or loss of employment to coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence its employees to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.
• Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940(h)
  • Government Code section 12940(h) makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under the FEHA.
• Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1)
  • Government Code section 12940(j)(1) makes the harassment of an employee because of their sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation unlawful if the entity, or its agents or supervisors, knew or should have known of this conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
• Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment from Occurring in Violation of Gov. Code, § 12940(k)
  • Plaintiff was a member of a group protected by that statute, in particular Government Code section 12940(k), prohibiting failure to take all steps to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.
• Retaliation In Violation of Lab. Code, § 1102.5
  • Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against an employee for disclosing information to a person with authority over the employee or who has authority to investigate, discover, or correct the issue, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. Labor Code section 1102.5 further prohibits retaliation against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in such a violation.
• Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy
  • It is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, the law and fundamental public policy of the state of California that an employer may not retaliate against an employee for raising, opposing, or refusing to participate in conduct or activities that he reasonably believes to be a violation of state or federal laws or regulations. This public policy is embodied in statutes including, but not limited to Labor Code sections 1101, 1102, 1102.5 and Government Code section 12940.

This is the "official press release" regarding his firing:

February 21, 2018 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
LAWSUIT CLAIMS GOOGLE’S NETWORKING FORUMS ARE A “CESSPOOL” OF HARASSMENT

San Francisco. A lawsuit filed today claims that Google, Inc.’s internal social networking forums have become a tool for widespread bullying and harassment of women, people of color and other underrepresented groups at the tech giant. The lawsuit also accuses Google of firing an employee for pushing back on the pervasive harassment.

Tim Chevalier, the software developer and computer scientist who filed the case, claims that Google fired him when he responded forcefully to posts attacking women and people of color and expressing white supremacist views. Chevalier, who is disabled and transgender, responded directly to the workplace bullies by posting comments challenging the hostile work environment and refuting assertions that women and people of color are biologically unsuited for software engineering, and that Google should not actively recruit them.

According to the lawsuit, Chevalier’s posts also championed transgender and disabled rights, and raised awareness about how Google’s culture excludes and discriminates against minorities. The lawsuit alleges that Google chose to fire Chevalier for his comments instead of addressing the rampant harassment and discrimination he was protesting.

Chevalier stated, “It is a cruel irony that Google attempted to justify firing me by claiming that my social networking posts showed bias against my harassers. The anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect marginalized and underrepresented groups- not those who attack them.”

Chevalier’s attorneys regularly represent tech employees in high profile discrimination and retaliation cases. According to David Lowe, one of Chevalier’s attorneys at Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP, “Company social networking forums can be incredibly useful, but employers have an obligation to prevent them from becoming a cesspool of bullying and harassment. Firing the employee who pushed back against the bullies was exactly the wrong step to take.”

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, seeks damages for lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

PRESS CONTACT: David A. Lowe
Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP
dal@rezlaw.com

https://tim.dreamwidth.org/2046951.html
http://archive.fo/pm3ju


Copy of the legal complaint:

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4384662-Chevalier-Complaint.html
http://archive.fo/vC1nE

Copy of complaint in PDF format:
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/4384662/Chevalier-Complaint.pdf

The legal firm that is representing Tim is "Rudy Exelrod Zieff & Lowe LLP"

The lawyer in the case, David, "was honored as an “Attorney of the Year” by California Lawyer magazine for his “extraordinary achievement” in employment law" (source: http://apps.americanbar.org/labor/lel-annualcle/09/materials/data/papers/bios/Lowe.pdf)

They're also listed by the The Bar Association of San Francisco as being LGBT sensitive:
https://www.sfbar.org/jdc/diversity/diversity-programs/lgbt-contacts.aspx

Interesting cases:

• Whitney Wolfe v. TINDER; MATCH.COM; and IAC, INC
  • https://www.rezlaw.com/News-Events/06-30-14_Complaint_with_Exhibits-1.pdf
  • https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/09/whitney-wolfe-vs-tinder/
    
  • http://www.businessinsider.com/whit...l-harassment-tinder-lawsuit-1-million-2014-11
    
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_Wolfe_Herd#Tinder
• RACHEL DANAE VACHATA v. LUCIO LANZA
  • https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/02...ted-female-startup-founder-on-red-eye-flight/
  • (its still pending was only filed a week ago)
• RICHARD PRENTICE, CHRISTIANMILLER, and TIFFINEYPETHERBRIDGE v. FUND FOR PUBLIC INTEREST RESEARCH, INC.
  • https://www.scribd.com/document/17407173/The-Fund-Class-Action-Motion-for-Settlement
  • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fund_for_the_Public_Interest#Lawsuits_against_the_Fund
• DANIELLE WARREN v. PAYCHEX, INC
  • https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2010cv02006/227427/24/0.pdf
    
  • https://www.law360.com/cases/4d3ea77eb6f4f1786600002f
• NICK CANCILLA v. ECOLAB
  • https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20121204722
    
  • https://www.law360.com/articles/669293/ecolab-strikes-7-5m-deal-to-end-exterminators-ot-suit

 

[AnOminous]

I'm pretty sure Alphabet is going to come down hard on these idiots for somehow managing to get sued both by SJWs and anti-SJWs because of their shitty policies.

Just as with Dhillon, this firm does not appear to consist of slouches, so someone who more or less knows what they're doing has signed up on both lawsuits against a potential monster litigant like Google, i.e. both these cases could cost upwards of a million to litigate to the end, if it comes to that.

 

[neger psykolog]

I'm pretty sure Alphabet is going to come down hard on these idiots for somehow managing to get sued both by SJWs and anti-SJWs because of their shitty policies.

Just as with Dhillon, this firm does not appear to consist of slouches, so someone who more or less knows what they're doing has signed up on both lawsuits against a potential monster litigant like Google, i.e. both these cases could cost upwards of a million to litigate to the end, if it comes to that.

Its probably pertinent to mention Google's employee policies about speaking publicly:

https://abc.xyz/investor/other/google-code-of-conduct.html

 

[Kosher Dill]

This bit seems to indicate that we have a lolsuit on our hands:

 

[Wargarbl]

The fun begins when either suit (or both of them) hits discovery and the internal shitshow is fully unmasked. Here's to hoping.

 

[Null]

I was OCD about the title of this thread being wrong, then I realized that the plaintiff named is "Google, Inc" while the one from Damore's is "Google LLC". Are they two different entities or did one of them name a fictitious entity? @AnOminous

The Damore lawsuit specifically states it's "Google LLC, a Delaware limited liability company" whereas this just says Google, Inc. I'm tempted to believe this dummy just assumed Google's company was Google, Inc.

Edit: After digging I found Google's official address and entity name on this page.
https://www.google.com/contact/

This one is Google LLC, address in California, which supports my thought.

 

[AnOminous]

I was OCD about the title of this thread being wrong, then I realized that the plaintiff named is "Google, Inc" while the one from Damore's is "Google LLC". Are they two different entities or did one of them name a fictitious entity? @AnOminous

The Damore lawsuit specifically states it's "Google LLC, a Delaware limited liability company" whereas this just says Google, Inc. I'm tempted to believe this dummy just assumed Google's company was Google, Inc.

Edit: After digging I found Google's official address and entity name on this page.
https://www.google.com/contact/

This one is Google LLC, address in California, which supports my thought.

Looks like he screwed up captioning it.

There's this:

And these:

Oops, they don't seem to exist any more! Good jerb, Mr. Hutz.

 

[Done]

Looks like he screwed up captioning it.

There's this:

View attachment 389523

And these:

View attachment 389524

Oops, they don't seem to exist any more! Good jerb, Mr. Hutz.

This lawsuit is off to a great start!

 

[Null]

Something tells me the equal and opposite reaction to Damore's lawsuit is not so equal.

 

[Done]

Something tells me the equal and opposite reaction to Damore's lawsuit is not so equal.

What will be interesting is seeing how those two cases will intersect or parallel each other in the future.

It feels like we have the "alt-right" lawsuit (at least that's how the press is painting it), and we have the "SJW" lawsuit, now all we need is a normie case to use as the control sample and we have a (sort-of) scientific study going on lol.
-------------------------------

@AnOminous , I realize that this is a huge noob question composed in a noob way, but is there any possibility that one case can utilize the discovery evidence of the other one? Not necessarily directly requesting it, but via obtaining the docs from news outlets..etc?

Or will the judges make a sort of Chinese wall, where each case goes by it's own discovery evidence according to it's pleadings and existing evidence?
-------------------------------

ETA: @neger psykolog , you do realize that the original A&H thread is now essentially a lolcow thread? IMO, you might wanna consider rewriting the OP as such and choosing the appropriate board to move it to.

Tim isn't with Google anymore, in fact, they are in open litigation, so unlike Liz Fong-Jones, I don't think that we need to anticipate any issues with the big G.

Unless @Null sees something that I don't..

 

[AnOminous]

@AnOminous , I realize that this is a huge noob question composed in a noob way, but is there any possibility that one case can utilize the discovery evidence of the other one? Not necessarily directly requesting it, but via obtaining the docs from news outlets..etc?

Depends what it is. In general, probably. You can't really use testimony from another case because it's hearsay, unless it falls into one of the six gorillion hearsay exceptions, like impeaching a witness.

If one case has factual findings in it, though, you could use it against Google, because it's a party to both cases, by a doctrine called collateral estoppel. This puts Google in a really ugly situation, because they might need to prove facts in one case which would make them lose the other case. Given the factual claims in the case so far, if they didn't discriminate against one of these parties, they discriminated against the other one.

They're almost going to be forced to argue contradictory things in both cases.

They'd really be better off at this point just paying off both of these guys to go away because they seem fucked either way.

This is why it's butt-fuck stupid to bring politics into the workplace.

 

[Done]

They're almost going to be forced to argue contradictory things in both cases.

They'd really be better off at this point just paying off both of these guys to go away because they seem fucked either way.

This is why it's butt-fuck stupid to bring politics into the workplace.

That first statement in the quote is exactly why I asked the question, I think Google's lawyers are going to really earn their keep here.

And I understand very well that money talks, but I don't think that either of the plaintiffs will consider settling as an objective:

- Damore is an autist who feels wronged by his firing over what he thinks was a very valid memo (IMO, it is), he wants to be proven right, and the firm representing him seems to be motivated by getting a victory against the current SocJus mindset.

- Chevalier is batshit crazy, very ideologically motivated and clearly wants to make the company pay for sheer revenge.

IMO, I think that Google will try and settle with Chevalier first, because on the face of it, that case seems far weaker than Damore's (multiple formal and informal warnings against persistent activism while on the job is far more defendable than a hatchet job over a company memo), but we will have to wait and see, preferably with popcorn.

 

[AnOminous]

That first statement in the quote is exactly why I asked the question, I think Google's lawyers are going to really earn their keep here.

And I understand very well that money talks, but I don't think that either of the plaintiffs will consider settling as an objective:

- Damore is an autist who feels wronged by his firing over what he thinks was a very valid memo (IMO, it is), he wants to be proven right, and the firm representing him seems to be motivated by getting a victory against the current SocJus mindset.

- Chevalier is batshit crazy, very ideologically motivated and clearly wants to make the company pay for sheer revenge.

Show anyone a number of dollars with two commas in it and they'll come around pretty quickly.

 

[neger psykolog]

was OCD about the title of this thread being wrong, then I realized that the plaintiff named is "Google, Inc" while the one from Damore's is "Google LLC". Are they two different entities or did one of them name a fictitious entity? @AnOminous

Yeah I noticed the difference but decided to caption the PDF itself because it made sense.

Although I'm not so sure the "inc" has actually ceased to exist. Alphabet's (which is the Google head company now) site even specifically mentions Google Inc in an investor letter in 2015:
"Alphabet Inc. will replace Google Inc. as the publicly-traded entity and all shares of Google will automatically convert into the same number of shares of Alphabet, with all of the same rights. Google will become a wholly-owned subsidiary of Alphabet. Our two classes of shares will continue to trade on Nasdaq as GOOGL and GOOG."
https://abc.xyz/investor/founders-letters/2015/index.html#2015-larry-alphabet-letter

Now here's a very interesting investor document from Alphabet:

https://abc.xyz/investor/pdf/20161231_alphabet_10K.pdf

Google didn't actually reoorganize until September 2017 (around the same time Tim got fired):
"Google is also changing from a corporation to a limited liability company, or LLC. This won’t alter the way the business pays taxes, said Gina Weakley Johnson, an Alphabet spokeswoman. The switch is partly related to Google’s transformation from a listed public company into a business owned by a holding company. The change helps keep potential challenges in one business from spreading to another, according to Dana Hobart, a litigator with the Buchalter law firm in Los Angeles."

• https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...reorganization-with-a-new-company-called-xxvi
• https://www.fastcompany.com/4046234...ngs-restructuring-reorganization-transparency

Its also important to note that Google has multiple divisions which probably all fall under different companies. So the hosting division may be completely different to the YouTube/whatever division.

 

[AnOminous]

According to Wikipedia, this.

"On September 1, 2017, Google Inc. announced its plans of restructuring as a limited liability company, Google LLC, as a wholly owned subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is formed as a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. to hold the equity of its other subsidiaries, including Google LLC and other bets."

I do not know what the word "bets" means here. Also the Wikipedia article links to a source that doesn't contain the information cited.

Here's what Google itself has to say:

"The company confirmed the move in a statement, telling us: “We’re updating our corporate structure to implement the changes we announced with the creation of Alphabet in 2015. This includes a conversion from Google Inc. to Google LLC and the creation of a new intermediate holding company under Alphabet, XXVI Holdings Inc."

The error is somewhat understandable. This is a fairly recent development. But Google, Inc. has restructured as an LLC. Harmeet Dhillon was apparently more on the ball than this guy's lawyer.

 

[neger psykolog]

According to Wikipedia, this.

"On September 1, 2017, Google Inc. announced its plans of restructuring as a limited liability company, Google LLC, as a wholly owned subsidiary of XXVI Holdings Inc., which is formed as a subsidiary of Alphabet Inc. to hold the equity of its other subsidiaries, including Google LLC and other bets."

I do not know what the word "bets" means here. Also the Wikipedia article links to a source that doesn't contain the information cited.

Here's what Google itself has to say:

"The company confirmed the move in a statement, telling us: “We’re updating our corporate structure to implement the changes we announced with the creation of Alphabet in 2015. This includes a conversion from Google Inc. to Google LLC and the creation of a new intermediate holding company under Alphabet, XXVI Holdings Inc."

The error is somewhat understandable. This is a fairly recent development. But Google, Inc. has restructured as an LLC. Harmeet Dhillon was apparently more on the ball than this guy's lawyer.

"other bets" is Google's fun projects like Nest etc. Google is the actual "money" whereas the "other bets" are like their shitposts.

http://www.knctlab.com/blog/google-becomes-alphabet-what-why-and-how

They were employed by Google Inc presumably when they were fired, so its going to be interesting to see how that works. I assume its the same company legally, just a restructuring so I doubt it will have any impact on the lawsuit.

Also:

https://www.avvo.com/legal-answers/can-company-changes-name-in-a-lawsuit--673266.html

Supposedly in California you can just amend the name in the lawsuit after filing it or even while its in court.

 

[AnOminous]

Supposedly in California you can just amend the name in the lawsuit after filing it or even while its in court.

That's most states, really. Courts don't care much about issues like whether you misspell someone's name. De minimis non curat lex.

 

[LulzKiller]

Show anyone a number of dollars with two commas in it and they'll come around pretty quickly.

you think Tim's getting at least a million?

 

[AnOminous]

you think Tim's getting at least a million?

I don't know. Google may decide fuck it and to just try to spend them into the ground instead. I'd expect them at the very least to try to get one or both of the cases dismissed. Facing just one suit, they're in less of a quandary.

I think they have a lot better shot of that in this case, because even based on the complaint and not contesting any facts in it, this dude admits there were multiple attempts at discipline and warnings that his behavior was misconduct, that he ignored repeated warnings, and that he was only terminated after he didn't change his behavior.

In Damore's case, they had encouraged employees to share their political views, which he did in a polite and respectful manner, and then he was immediately bombarded with a harassment campaign, those who harassed him were given bonuses, and then they terminated him despite him having done nothing else.

 

[AnOminous]

If I saw this dude I'd just assume he was a neckbeard. When he said he was a tranny, I just assumed he was one of the really shitty troon "MtF" types who demand to be called she despite having a dick and a beard.