https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-16/google-firing-of-damore-was-legal-u-s-labor-panel-lawyer-said

Google’s firing of an engineer over his controversial memo criticizing its diversity policies and “politically correct monoculture” didn’t violate U.S. labor law, a federal agency lawyer concluded.

Statements in James Damore’s 3,000-word memo “regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive” that they fell outside protections for collective action in the workplace, an associate general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board wrote in a six-page memo disclosed Thursday.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35424059)

in fact, this decision came from the NLRB's current general counsel, who has openly declared that he wants to roll back nearly everything the NLRB has done since 2009.

from what i have read, when they terminated him google was careful to rely ONLY on portions of the memo that were incendiary and arguably could constitute sex discrimination/harassment. they may have consulted with a labor lawyer before firing the guy (or they got lucky in not citing other portions of the memo).

if correct, this is not a controversial decision. the NLRA only protects concerted activity regarding "protected" subjects (pay, working conditions, etc.) if google truly only relied on shit like "WOMEN ARE BAD AT SCIENCE!" in the memo, the NLRA shouldn't protect statements like that anyway. (if you disagree, then you are in agreement, in principle, with the shitlibs Obama packed the NLRB with, who wanted to extend NLRA protection to almost any conduct no matter how tenuously related to working conditions affecting employees as a group.)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35424089)

Unless the memo was national news before he was fired and the stories were discussing the NLRA protections present in the memo, which I think is unlikely

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35426057)

Corporatism:Diversity christianity:virgin birth

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35435850)

Is the truth of the statement any kind of defense / work in his favor in any way? Or does that not matter at all b/c you could still be extremely disruptive with the truth...

The word "discriminatory" in that sentence though bugs me b/c for some reason it makes it seem like discriminatory implies untruth.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3895770&forum_id=2#35427137)