A Google engineer fired for writing a memo questioning Google’s commitment to diversity has filed a lawsuit alleging his ouster was driven by a corporate culture that discriminates against white men and people with conservative views, including supporters of President Trump.

The 161-page complaint filed Monday on behalf of James Damore and another former Google engineer depicts Google as an elitist company that shuns employees who dare to deviate from a liberal agenda embraced by its management and most of its workforce.

The lawsuit was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court and comes five months after Google fired Damore for writing a 10-page memo titled “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” In that missive, Damore criticized Google for pushing mentoring and diversity programs and for “alienating conservatives.” He also blamed biological differences for the paucity of women in tech.

Damore, 28, says he submitted early versions of his memo to Google’s human resources department without being reprimanded. Just a few days after Damore posted the memo on an internal message board, it was leaked to a technology blog. Google fired him Aug. 7 amid an uproar among workers offended by its themes.

Google CEO Sundar Pichai said Damore had violated the company’s code of conduct “by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace.”

But the lawsuit contends Damore’s firing reflects Google’s intolerance for opinions that aren’t widely shared by its workforce. The complaint seeks to be certified as a class action that will represent all current and former Google workers who believe they were discriminated against for expressing conservative viewpoints, a group that also could include women.

The lawsuit also accuses Google of discriminating against white men like Damore.

Google said it looks forward to defending itself against the allegations in court.

Fired Google Engineer’s Lawsuit Claims Reverse Discrimination 9 January,2018KQED News Staff

  • mbrenman

    Well no, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. He’s claiming discrimination. White males are protected by civil rights laws just as other people are.

    • virgil

      What about white females? Can they be vics of ‘reverse discrimination’ meaning discrimination by and for minorities against white people—racial discrimination committed in the name of minorities or by them? Ah yeah. Ask Abigal Fisher….an applicant to UT Austin who was denied admission even though she presented superior test scores, grades and community activities than minority applicants admitted under affirmative action. Was she discriminated against because she was a woman? No. Was she discriminated against because she is white? That SCOTUS endorsed this kind of rank racial discrimination is disgraceful. People use the term reverse discrimination because in general people wrongly assume that only non white folks can be vic of discrimination or that only white people can benefit from discrimination.

      • mbrenman

        The federal civil rights laws protect people of all races, ethnicities, and genders from discrimination. The Supreme Court has not endorsed racial discrimination.

        • virgil

          SCOTUS did most certainly find race based discrimination constitutional (under some circumstance which seems to be almost always with them) constitutional in the UM law school case (as long as the use of race is one factor among many—oh please give me a break) and in UT Austin case with Fisher. The UT case is especially egregious. UT had a race neutral admission of top 10 percent of HS grads auto admit. But not enough POC were making it in even with that to reach “critical mass” of diversity. So they got an OK from the Fed courts to re establish a race based admission for POC. Fisher had superior grades, scores and extras compared to those POC admitted under the UT affirmative action program The evidence that UT had 2 standards—one for white people and for POC was overwhelming and a clear violation of the equal protection cause. The Supreme Court by upholding UT affirmative action race based discrimination made a cultural and political decision NOT one based on the 14th amendment. It was a sad and sick day in American legal history and a clear case of what is often called “reverse discrimination” that is discrimination against white people (and increasingly against Asian people as well). The liberal supreme members employ all kinds of code words like “race awareness” rather than what is —racial preference. That doesn’t disguise the fact that 2 different standards exist at UT–one for whites and one for POC.

    • virgil

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor