E-FILED 1/8/2018 9:43 AM HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873) 1 Clerk of Court [email protected] Superior Court of CA, RAVDEEP S. GREWAL (SBN: 308447) 2 County of Santa Clara [email protected] 18CV321529 3 GREGORY R. MICHAEL (SBN: 306814) Reviewed By: R. Walker [email protected] 4 DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 5 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, California 94108 6 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 7 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Damore and David Gudeman, on behalf of themselves 9 and all others similarly situated 10 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 11 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 UNLIMITED JURISDICTION 13

14 JAMES DAMORE and DAVID Case Number: 18CV321529 GUDEMAN, individually and on behalf of 15 all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT:

16 1. Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1101 Plaintiffs, 2. Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102 17 3. Workplace Discrimination on the basis v. 18 of Gender and/or Race in Violation of FEHA 19 GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware limited 4. Workplace Harassment in Violation of liability company; and DOES 1-10, FEHA 20 5. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA Defendants. 21 6. Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy 7. Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab. 22 Code § 1102.5 8. Failure To Prevent Harassment, 23 Discrimination, and Retaliation 24 9. Unfair Business Practices, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. 25 10. Declaratory Relief

26 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 27 28

1 Complaint

1 1. James Damore (“Damore”) and David Gudeman (“Gudeman” (together, “Plaintiffs”), 2 through their attorneys, Dhillon Law Group Inc., file this Complaint against Google, LLC. 3 (“Google”), a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10 (Google and Does, collectively, 4 “Defendants”). Upon personal knowledge, or, if so indicated, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs 5 allege as follows: 6 CASE SUMMARY 7 2. Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf 8 of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their 9 perceived conservative political views by Google in California at any time during the time period 10 beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action 11 (“Political Class Period”); (ii) due to their male gender by Google in California at any time during the 12 time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this 13 action (“Gender Class Period”); and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race by Google in California at any 14 time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date 15 of trial in this action (“Race Class Period”) (Political Class Period, Gender Class Period, and Race 16 Class Period referred to collectively, as “Class Periods”). These violations also subject Google to 17 claims for violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.1 18 3. Throughout the Class Periods, and in violation of California law, Google employees 19 who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the 20 workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as “diversity” hiring 21 policies, “bias sensitivity,” or “social justice,” were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically 22 punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights. 23 4. Google’s open hostility for conservative thought is paired with invidious 24 discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred by law. Google’s management goes to 25 extreme—and illegal—lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race 26 and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and 27

1 28 In addition, Plaintiffs intend to assert claims under the Private Attorney General Act of California, when those claims are perfected.

2 Complaint

1 male employees and potential employees at Google. 2 5. Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished 3 for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being 4 Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination—Google formed opinions about and 5 then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups 6 with assumed characteristics. 7 6. Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox 8 opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted 9 bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were 10 openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an 11 environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view 12 or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could 13 harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so. 14 7. Google employs illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and 15 favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their 16 quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than 17 others. 18 8. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to 19 their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company- 20 wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at 21 Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the 22 Class Periods. 23 9. Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate their legal rights, and to stop Google from 24 repeating these practices against other employees or prospective employees now, and in the future. 25 THE PARTIES 26 10. Damore is an individual who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, worked in 27 Mountain View, California for Google as a Senior Software Engineer, a Software Engineer, and an 28 Intern. Damore was an employee of Google from 2013 until his wrongful termination on August 7,

3 Complaint

1 2017. 2 11. Gudeman is an individual who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, worked in 3 Mountain View, California for Google as a Software Engineer. Gudeman was an employee of Google

4 until his wrongful termination. Gudeman worked for Google from 2013 to December 2016. 5 12. Google is a corporation that, at all times relevant to the Complaint, was incorporated 6 under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County, 7 California. Google is registered with the California Secretary of State for the purpose of transacting 8 business in California. Google is the direct employer of the named Plaintiffs. 9 13. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that DOES 1 through 10 are the partners, 10 agents, owners, shareholders, managers, or employees of Defendants, and are, or at relevant time 11 were, acting on their behalf. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants 12 sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10, but prays for leave to amend and serve 13 such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become known. 14 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15 14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution, 16 Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except 17 those given by statute to other courts.” 18 15. This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and belief, 19 each Defendant is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or 20 otherwise intentionally avails himself or itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of 21 jurisdiction over it or him by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and 22 substantial justice. 23 16. Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Google resides, 24 transacts business, and/or has offices in the County of Santa Clara, and most of the unlawful 25 practices, acts, and omissions alleged herein took place in the County of Santa Clara. 26 EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES 27 17. On November 30, 2017, Damore filed an administrative complaint against Google 28 with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and was issued a right-

4 Complaint

1 to-sue letter. 2 18. On November 30, 2017, Gudeman filed an administrative complaint against Google 3 with the DFEH, and was issued a right-to-sue letter. 4 19. Damore and Gudeman exhausted the necessary administrative remedies by filing the 5 above-referenced charge of discrimination with the DFEH, and obtaining right-to-sue letters. 6 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS OF NAMED PLAINTIFFS 7 JAMES DAMORE 8 Damore’s Employment With Google 9 20. Damore received his Bachelor of Science degree in Molecular Biology, Physics, and 10 Chemistry from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He then earned his Master of Science 11 in Systems Biology from Harvard University. 12 21. Damore first began working for Google as a Harvard student in or around the summer 13 of 2013 as a Ph.D. software intern. By around December 2013, Google converted this internship into a 14 full-time position, and hired Damore as a Software Engineer. 15 22. Damore worked on the team that was responsible for indexing and serving Google’s 16 search results for users. 17 23. Damore was diligent and loyal, and received substantial praise for the quality of his 18 work. Damore received the highest possible rating twice, including in his most recent performance 19 review, and consistently received high performance ratings, placing him in the top few percentile of 20 Google employees. Throughout the course of his employment with Google, Damore received 21 approximately eight performance bonuses, the most recent of which was approximately 20% of his 22 annual salary. Damore also received stock bonuses from the Google amounting to approximately 23 $150,000 per year. 24 24. Damore was never disciplined or suspended during his entire tenure at Google. 25 25. Based on Damore’s excellent work, Damore was promoted to Senior Software 26 Engineer in or around January 2017—just eight months before his unlawful termination by Google. 27 26. Damore did not have any direct reports, did not supervise employees, did not assign 28 work to other employees, and was not an integral or crucial part of the hiring and firing process at

5 Complaint

1 Google. Damore was not allowed to discipline employees. 2 27. Damore’s immediate supervisor was Cristian Tapus (“Tapus”). Tapus reports to Chuck 3 Wu (“Wu”), Senior Director of Engineering for Google. Wu, in turn, reports to Ari Balogh 4 (“Balogh”), Vice President of Engineering at Google. Balogh reports to Sridhar Ramaswamy 5 (“Ramaswamy), the Senior Vice President of GPI and Ads. Ramaswamy, in turn, reports to Sundar 6 Pichai (CEO of Google), who ultimately reports to Larry Page (CEO of Alphabet). 7 Google Shamed Teams Lacking Female Parity at TGIF Meetings 8 28. On March 30, 2017, Damore attended a weekly company-wide meeting called a “TGIF 9 meeting.” These weekly meetings were used as an avenue for employees to connect and discuss 10 certain topics involving Google. 11 29. The TGIF meeting on March 30, 2017 was entitled “Women’s History Month,” and 12 Google brought in two presenters for this get-together: Ruth Porat (“Porat”), the Chief Financial 13 Officer of Google, and Eileen Naughton (“Naughton”), the Human Resources Director of Google. 14 30. During the March 30, 2017 TGIF meeting, either Porat or Naughton pointed out and 15 shamed individual departments at Google in which women comprised less than 50% of the workforce. 16 Alternatively, they applauded and praised departments, such as the sales department, where women 17 comprised more than 50% of the workforce. 18 31. During the event, Porat and Naughton also discussed that when looking at groups of 19 people for promotions or for leadership opportunities on new projects, Google would be taking into 20 account gender and ethnic demographics. They then mentioned that Google’s racial and gender 21 preferences in hiring were not up for debate, because this was morally and economically the best thing 22 to do for Google. 23 32. Damore was surprised by Google’s position on blatantly taking gender into 24 consideration during the hiring and promotion processes, and in publicly shaming Google business 25 units for failing to achieve numerical gender parity. Damore believed that blatant gender preferences 26 and quotas were inconsistent with US and California discrimination laws. This TGIF meeting was one 27 of the factors that led to Damore attending Google’s Diversity and Inclusion Summit. 28

6 Complaint

1 Google’s Diversity And Inclusion Summit 2 33. In or about June 2017, Damore attended a “Diversity and Inclusion Summit” 3 (“Summit”) conducted by Google at the Mountain View campus. Approximately 100 employees 4 attended this event. Damore felt pressured to attend the event because Google proclaims “commitment 5 to diversity and inclusion” to be an important factor in deciding promotion to leadership positions. 6 Due to his excellent work performance, Damore was on the path to a leadership position at Google 7 before his abrupt termination. 8 34. The Summit was organized by Google’s senior vice presidents and other members of 9 Google’s leadership team, including Balogh and Ramaswamy. Employees were allowed to ask 10 questions, and there were also breakout groups for subsequent conversations. 11 35. The Summit covered general topics such as how Google could increase its diversity. 12 Specifically, the Google presenters went through some of their policies that were designed to 13 accomplish this such as treating preferred categories of people (women, certain but not all ethnic 14 minority groups) differently during the hiring process by providing extra interviews, and putting 15 applicants into a more welcoming environment based on their race or gender. The Google presenters 16 also discussed putting “diverse” individuals into high priority queues so that they were more likely to 17 be hired, and hired faster. 18 36. Google defined “diverse” individuals as women or individuals who were not Caucasian 19 or Asian. 20 37. At the Summit, Damore spoke with Meghana Rao (“Rao”) from Google’s Human 21 Resources department (“Google HR”). Damore told Rao that he believed some of the positions taken 22 by Google were divisive and misguided. Specifically, Damore mentioned that it seemed like Google 23 was elevating political correctness over merit. 24 38. Rao responded to Damore’s comment by stating “some of the political things at Google 25 were a problem.” They discussed how some Google employees with conservative views and values 26 did not feel included, and Rao mentioned how she, and other HR representatives, had received similar 27 complaints in the past from employees with conservative views. 28 39. While at the Summit, Damore participated in breakout group sessions with other

7 Complaint

1 employees. There he asked questions about whether Google looked at viewpoint diversity with respect 2 to hiring decisions and in evaluating how inclusive Google was as a workplace. The answer he 3 received was that Google only looked at demographic diversity (gender and/or race) when making 4 hiring and promotion decisions—not at viewpoint diversity. 5 40. At the end of the program, the Google presenters specifically asked employee attendees 6 to give written feedback on the program. This prompted Damore to draft a memorandum entitled 7 “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” 8 Damore’s Memorandum on Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber 9 41. On or about the end of June 2017, after Google asked for feedback on the contents of 10 the Summit, Damore spoke with different Google employees about the issues they felt were not evenly 11 covered at the Summit, and drafted a memorandum (“memo”) based on those conversations. Multiple 12 employees made suggestions and provided feedback, and this memo was edited multiple times. 13 Damore named this memo “go/pc-considered-harmful,” using Google’s own naming conventions. A 14 copy of the final version of the memo with all the edits incorporated is attached as “Exhibit A.” 15 42. Damore observes in the memo that Google employees and management focus greatly 16 on alleged unconscious racial and gender bias, but neglect political orientation, which is actually a 17 result of deep moral bias. 18 43. Damore specifically stated in the memo that his purpose for writing the memo was to 19 promote discussion among Google employees regarding the “diversity and inclusion” issues covered 20 in the Summit. He wrote: “[o]pen and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our 21 blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.” Damore further stated, “Of course, 22 I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I 23 consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to 24 discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.” 25 44. The memo then went on to discuss the differences in political ideologies between the 26 leftist liberals and the rightist conservatives, and suggested that neither ideology on its own was 27 “100% correct,” but that a balance between the two would be best for society and Google. The memo 28 then identified Google as having a liberal bias.

8 Complaint

1 45. Damore’s memo went on to discuss conclusions made in scientific studies, and 2 included hyperlinks to the studies that Damore referenced. The memo linked to articles and studies 3 from the Wiley Online Library, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Quillette, the 4 British Journal of Guidance and Counseling, and The Atlantic. These citations were provided for the 5 purpose of identifying potential alternative bases for differential workplace patterns at Google, as 6 compared to the sole reason that Google provided—namely, hiring/employment bias. Google, and 7 certain employees and outsiders who eventually read this memo, ignored these citations, and later 8 publicly attributed the conclusions drawn from these studies directly to Damore himself. 9 46. After identifying possible non-bias causes for the so-called gender gap identified as an 10 issue in the tech industry, Damore went on to suggest non-discriminatory ways of reducing the gender 11 gap that did not involve the illegal racial and gender quotas and preferences that Google openly admits 12 to having employed. 13 47. Damore’s memo then explained the harms of Google’s current method of simply 14 looking at an individual’s race and/or gender when deciding who to hire, as it effectively lowered the 15 bar for underrepresented minorities and women and increased tensions between employees. 16 Furthermore, Damore pointed out that Google’s current method of increasing diversity resulted in 17 what is known as reverse discrimination, because Caucasian and Asian males were not being selected 18 for jobs and promotions due solely to their status as non-females or non-favored minorities. 19 48. Damore ended his memo by addressing the problem in a constructive manner by 20 advocating that Google should treat employees and potential hires as individuals, not members of 21 tribes: “I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 22 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities 23 have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not 24 saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their 25 group (tribalism).” 26 49. Damore also suggested more concrete steps that Google could take to remedy its 27 problematic/illegal tribalist approach, including stopping the alienation of conservatives, recognizing 28 the fact that Google has its own biases and confronting those, and having open and honest discussions.

9 Complaint

1 Damore Posted The Memo Only For His Coworkers to Discuss 2 50. Damore submitted the memo to Google HR using the feedback form provided by the 3 Google presenters at the Summit. 4 51. Damore’s memo was written entirely on Google’s GoogleDocs systems. The comments 5 section of the memo was left open for other Google employees to leave their thoughts on the document 6 from the day Damore drafted the document to the day Damore was terminated. This document was not 7 hidden in any manner. 8 52. Damore published multiple versions of the memo, internally, each version altered after 9 receiving solicited, individual feedback from numerous Google employees. 10 53. On July 3, 2017, at the suggestion of a co-worker, Damore posted the memo on a 11 Google group discussion forum called CoffeeBeans. CoffeeBeans was an internal Google forum used 12 to discuss various issues at Google, such as workplace diversity. 13 54. In parallel with the discussion group created in CoffeeBeans, Damore emailed 14 individuals responsible for Google’s diversity programs, the Women at Google Program, the Code of 15 Conduct team, and Google HR. Damore also asked whether certain diversity programs that were 16 aimed at helping individuals on the basis of their gender or race, such as “Women Who Code,” 17 “BOLD” (an internship program offered only to women and underrepresented minorities), and 18 “Stretch” (a class Google offers only to women) were legal, and asked how using someone’s protected 19 status, such as race and/or gender, in making employment decisions, was legal. 20 55. Damore emailed the Google Code of Conduct team to state that he believed some of 21 Google’s policies were not being applied equally, and were being violated. The Code of Conduct team 22 referred Damore to Google HR for further action on his concerns. Damore’s complaint about Google’s 23 illegal hiring and employment practices was never investigated or pursued by Google HR, other than 24 by firing him. 25 56. The Women at Google group responded to Damore and stated that its goal was 50% 26 representation of women at Google. On or about June 2017, Damore met with an individual from the 27 Women at Google group named “Monica” to further discuss his memo, and the organization’s goals. 28 Monica agreed that Damore had a valuable perspective and should share that perspective with the

10 Complaint

1 diversity teams, and she promised to connect Damore with such diversity teams, but she never did so, 2 despite Damore’s repeated requests. 3 Diversity Training Event 4 57. On or about July 2017, after the Diversity and Inclusion Summit, Google held another 5 diversity training class (“Diversity Training”) at its Mountain View headquarters. Damore attended 6 this event based on his similar motivations for attending the Summit—namely, because Google 7 factored “diversity and inclusion” into its employment advancement opportunities. 8 58. The Diversity Training was broken into two parts: 1) an online course, followed by, 2) 9 an in-person training. 10 59. Damore provided feedback in response to the online portion of the Diversity Training, 11 by asking whether Google accounted for political viewpoint bias in the workplace, since Google was 12 addressing other biases. Google’s only response was that Damore should attend the in-person training. 13 60. At the in-person training, entitled “Bias Busting,” Google discussed how biases against 14 women exist in the workplace, and how “white male privilege” exists in the workplace. The training 15 was run by the “Unbiasing Group” at Google, and there were approximately 20 Google employees 16 present. Damore disagreed with this one-sided approach. When Damore verbalized his dissent and his 17 concerns with the one-sided presentation, other employees, including managers, laughed at him 18 derisively. They considered his views to be conservative, and thus flawed and worthy of 19 disparagement. 20 61. At the end of the Diversity Training, the presenters asked the audience members to 21 submit any written feedback they might have to them. In response, Damore electronically submitted 22 the memo he had drafted, which had been updated multiple times with comments and feedback from 23 other Google employees, once again to Google HR. Google HR once again ignored Damore, and did 24 not respond to the memo in any way. 25 62. On or about August 2, 2017, at the suggestion of a Google colleague, Damore 26 submitted the edited memo to [email protected] (“Skeptics”), another message board for Google 27 employees only. Damore explicitly stated that the purpose of submitting the memo to the group was 28 for Google employees to discuss different views and look at matters from a different perspective,

11 Complaint

1 including the conservative perspective; otherwise, all Google employees would simply hear their same 2 opinions regurgitated over and over again, and never enrich their experiences with different 3 viewpoints. 4 63. Within the next few days after Damore published the memo on the Skeptics forum, the 5 memo became more and more widely viewed on the private Google forums. 6 64. On or about August 4, 2017, an unknown Google employee leaked the memo to either 7 Vice Motherboard or Gizmodo, which selectively quoted from the memo and misinterpreted it. This 8 “news story,” distorting Damore’s internal memo on workplace issues, was picked up by other media 9 outlets, until Damore’s memo went viral across the world. 10 65. On August 4, 2017, Damore attended a meeting with Rao and another representative 11 from Google HR. At the meeting, Rao stated that Google was aware of Damore’s memo, and although 12 Google could not ask him to take it down because it was protected political speech, they still thought it 13 was in his best interest to do so. Damore understood from this meeting that Google was threatening 14 him with termination for his internal speech about workplace issues, including his critique on Google’s 15 gender and race quota programs and its dismissal of unpopular (conservative) political viewpoints. 16 Damore Received Threats From His Coworkers 17 66. After Damore’s memo went viral outside Google, Damore began receiving multiple 18 threats and insults from his coworkers 19 67. On August 3, 2017 George Sadlier (“Sadlier”), a Director at Google, sent out a mass 20 email condemning James’ essay as “repulsive and intellectually dishonest” and promising an HR 21 investigation into Damore. Sadlier also promoted posts that advocated for physical violence against 22 Damore. Subsequently, On Friday, August 4, 2017, Damore received a late-night email from Alex 23 Hidalgo, a Site Reliability Engineer at Google in Sadlier’s organization, which stated, “You’re a 24 misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. Fuck you.” 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

12 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

11 12 68. Hidalgo’s email was another example of how Google’s management team encouraged 13 rank-and-file employees to attack other Googlers who expressed political viewpoints outside the 14 Company’s very narrow views. 15 69. Damore forwarded Hidalgo’s email to Google HR, and was told to work from home for 16 some time until emotions cooled down. Similar threats followed from other coworkers. Google 17 executives and employees condemned Damore, his memo, and his views. Some coworkers demanded 18 Damore’s termination, and the termination of other individuals who shared his views. 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

13 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Google Terminated Damore 17 70. Damore was terminated on Monday, August 7, 2017 at approximately 6:00 p.m., via 18 telephone, as he had been working from home that day, pursuant to HR’s instruction following the 19 Alex Hidalgo threat of August 4. 20 71. Damore received a call from Rao, who was also joined by Wu. After exchanging 21 pleasantries, Damore informed Rao and Wu that he had filed a complaint that morning with the 22 NLRB, due to Defendant’s prohibition of his engagement in a protected concerted activity (discussing 23 workplace conditions with his coworkers). Rao and Wu did not respond to this point. 24 72. Wu told Damore he was being terminated for “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” Rao 25 then stated this was the Google’ final decision. When Damore attempted to explain why his 26 termination was unlawful, Rao stated there would be no discussion. 27 73. During the call when they terminated Damore, Neither Wu nor Rao identified any 28 Google policy or procedure that Damore had violated.

14 Complaint

1 2 Google Employees Were Awarded Bonuses for Arguing against Damore’s Views 3 74. Not only did Google terminate Damore for his political views relating to workplace 4 issues, but they then rewarded individuals who disagreed with and disparaged Damore. 5 75. The Google Recognition Team allowed employees to give fellow employees “Peer 6 Bonuses” for arguing against Damore’s political viewpoints. Peer Bonuses were typically reserved for 7 outstanding work performance or for going above and beyond an employee’s job duties. Defending the 8 liberal agenda, or defending violations of California employment law, is not in any Google employee’s 9 job description. 10 76. In one example of this, an employee gave a Peer Bonus to another employee, and stated 11 that the bonus was for “speaking up for googley values and promoting [diversity and inclusion] in the 12 wretched hive of scum and villainy that is [Damore’s Memo].” The Google Recognition Team 13 reviewed this justification, considered it appropriate, and allowed the bonus to proceed. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27

28

15 Complaint

1 77. On August 5, 2017, Colm Buckley (“Buckley”), a high-ranking SRE Director, stated 2 his intention to stifle political dissent within Google. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DAVID GUDEMAN 17 Gudeman Begins Working at Google 18 78. Gudeman first began working for Google in or around October 8, 2013, until his 19 termination on or around December 5, 2016. 20 79. Gudeman was a conservative, a Caucasian, and a male at Google, and was 21 discriminated against and harassed as a result. Gudeman was ultimately terminated for these protected 22 characteristics. 23 The Derail Document 24 80. On or about August 20, 2015, Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), an L7 SWE Manager, drafted 25 and published a document on a Google-employees only website, entitled, “Derailing.” This document 26 discussed how individuals might attempt to silence someone’s opinions or distract from someone’s 27 point of view. The document was aimed at Caucasian males, and conflated marginalization with white 28

16 Complaint

1 male privilege. The document essentially claimed through examples that any response but agreement 2 to a statement about bias, prejudice, or privilege was a “derailment.” Reductio ad absurdum, the thesis 3 of this document is that on this one particular set of topics, the left-wing political frame of systematic 4 bias, must always dominate, and the receiver must accept that frame, and its associated worldview, in 5 their response. 6 81. Gudeman read this article, and disagreed with its premise, as did many other 7 employees. Gudeman left a comment stating his belief that men “need to understand that [Caucasian 8 males] are the victims of a racist and sexist political movement and it is not their fault.” 9 82. Gudeman went on to state that “the point of this document is to disallow any defense at 10 all that a man might make when some woman complains about bias. There is no defense. The woman 11 is always right. The man has no alternative but to submit to her superior moral position. We have a 12 word for that attitude, it’s called ‘sexism.’” 13 83. After Gudeman’s comments, others responded stating that he was misinterpreting the 14 document, to which Gudeman responded, “Well if that’s the point then you could be clearer, because 15 all I’m getting from this document is that when anyone claims bias, there is no possible defense, not 16 even the defense that the bias did not exist.” He then provided a helpful suggestion to assuage any 17 similar concerns other Caucasian men might have, and suggested, “Maybe a section on what a man 18 should do when a woman accuses him of bias in order to protect himself from a system that is highly 19 biased against him.” 20 84. Gudeman’s comments were not well-received by other supposedly open-minded 21 Googlers. Gudeman even further stated in another comment, “I started out intending to change minds 22 by explaining logically and rationally what is offensive about this document. In response, I was treated 23 dismissively.” 24 85. Gudeman compared this document to that which “slave owners would have written for 25 their slaves to help them understand how to interact with their masters,” in order to point out 26 prejudices involved with the document. 27 28

17 Complaint

1 86. Burchett, instead of applying the constructive criticism and potentially helping other 2 employees who felt similarly discriminated against like Gudeman did, stated that she was “[r]esolving 3 this comment. Also escalating to management.” 4 87. Ironically, other Google employees began to “derail” Gudeman’s point of view. Under 5 the guise of advocating for an open dialogue, Burchett merely reported Googlers that disagreed with 6 the thesis of her document, as Gudeman did, to Google management as being “un-Googley.” This 7 further exemplifies the one-sided and flawed mindset of Google—that anyone that disagrees with you 8 is wrong and hateful. 9 Google Punished Gudeman for His Views on Racism and Discrimination 10 88. After being reported to Google, Google HR spoke with Gudeman in or around 11 September 2015 regarding his posts. 12 89. Google HR discussed Gudeman’s viewpoints on race and/or gender equality, and his 13 political viewpoints. Google HR chastised him for attempting to stand up for Caucasian males and his 14 conservative views. 15 90. At the end of the HR meeting, Gudeman was issued a verbal warning. 16 91. Gudeman complained to his colleagues about the lack of fairness that conservatives 17 received at Google, and the leeway Google provided for liberals to express their thoughts and opinions 18 without repercussions. 19 92. After the 2016 presidential election, many employees at Google began to panic, having 20 expected a different outcome fully in line with their political views. 21 93. On November 10, 2016, in response to many Google employee posting on different 22 Google-wide forums regarding their fears about the new administration, Gudeman wrote that anyone 23 “who believes President Trump will be out to get minorities, women or gays has absorbed a lot of 24 serious lies from their echo chamber. And the echo chamber is entirely one sided. You can’t watch TV 25 or go to movies without being constantly confronted with the leftist world view. Leftists can go their 26 whole life never being exposed to the conservative world view except in shows written by people 27 hostile to it.” 28

18 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5

6 7 94. Gudeman also stated in response to another Google employee that “[i]f you truly think 8 Trump is anything like a Nazi or Isis [sic], or wants to hurt gays, women or the disabled, then you are 9 so badly out of touch it borders on delusional. If you don’t truly believe those things but are saying 10 them anyway then shame on you for trying to stir up fear and hatred.” 11 Google Terminates Gudeman 12 95. On November 9, 2016, a few days after President Trump was elected as President, 13 Sarmad Gilani (“Gilani”), a Google employee, posted the following message on a Dory thread (an 14 internal forum where Google employees can ask questions that other Google employees can respond 15 to): “As someone already targeted by the FBI (including at work) for being a Muslim, I’m worried for 16 my personal safety and liberty. Will Google take a public stand to defend minorities and use its 17 influence, or just issue the usual politically nuanced statements about our values.” 18 96. Gudeman responded skeptically to Gilani’s claim that he was targeted solely due to his 19 religion by asking, “In the administration of the most pro-Muslim president in history you were 20 targeted just for being a Muslim? Why didn’t you file a civil rights suit? The Justice Department 21 would take your side if it really happened.” 22 97. Other Google employees immediately misinterpreted Gudeman’s post and responded 23 by stating: 24 a. “‘If it really happened’? Come on David, let’s give our coworkers the benefit of the 25 doubt here and not suggest they’re lying.” 26 b. “‘Pics or it didn’t happen’ isn’t a very constructive comment here.” 27 c. “Reminds me of that ‘why you didn’t report sexual harassment to the police?’ 28 argument. Pfff.”

19 Complaint

1 98. Gudeman attempted to explain that he was not suggesting that Gilani was lying, and 2 affirmatively stated that he “would not suggest [Gilani] was lying without specific knowledge of the 3 case.” 4 99. Gudeman further stated that at the suggestion of another Googler, he searched Gilani’s 5 story of being profiled, and found “zero evidence for the claim that [Gilani] was targeted just for being 6 a Muslim.” Gudeman posed more questions about the FBI’s motives for looking into Gilani such as 7 the fact that Gilani had recently visited Pakistan, and that the FBI could have possibly found 8 something interesting about Gilani’s trip or the region that he visited. 9 100. In response to Gudeman’s legitimate questions, a fellow Google employee became 10 hostile and stated that she had to escalate this thread, meaning that she reported it to Google HR. 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 101. Gudeman had another conversation with another Google employee on November 10, 18 2016, where he complained about being a conservative and a Trump supporter. Gudeman pointed out 19 that “Trump supporters are a hated and despised minority at Google. Googlers feel comfortable 20 slandering them in a public forum and assume there will be no consequences.” 21 102. Gudeman’s comment was met with anger and accusations of him “gaslighting” instead 22 of having genuine concerns. 23 103. On or around December 5, 2016, Google HR reached out to Gudeman to discuss his 24 comments, including those surrounding Gilani’s post. Google HR stated that Gudeman had accused 25 Gilani of terrorism based on Gilani’s religion, and this was unacceptable. As a result of Gudeman’s 26 “accusations,” Google stated that he was being terminated. 27 104. Gudeman attempted to simply question the logic behind a co-worker’s story of 28 victimization on the basis of his race and religion, but because of his political affiliations, Gudeman

20 Complaint

1 was retaliated against and fired. Google employees were not allowed to question the diversity narrative 2 of the company, even to the point of questioning politically-charged factual assertions by fellow 3 employees to prove their own political agendas. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

17 105. These interactions showed that the culture at Google was severe enough that employees 18 such as Gudeman were bullied into silence and required to tolerate harassment without pushing back, 19 yet Google’s management refused to consider their concerns to be valid or even worthy of 20 investigation. 21 POTENTIAL CLASS MEMBERS 22 Google Punished Other Employees Who Raised Similar Concerns 23 106. Google employees have witnessed multiple instances in which hundreds of 24 “progressive” Googlers would target a single co-worker for harassment, and even potential violence, 25 over a politicized matter, humiliating the person and sabotaging his career. In some of these cases, the 26 victim of the targeted harassment campaign was expressing legitimate concerns about discrimination 27 against Caucasians and males in the workplace as a result of political agitation by social justice 28

21 Complaint

1 activists. As a result of this mistreatment and retaliation, many Google employees have been afraid to 2 publicly come forward. Because of the virulent threats against them by fellow Google employees, their 3 names are not being used in the Complaint at this time. 4 107. In one example, in May 2015, a Google employee brought evidence of harassment and 5 discrimination against other conservatives, males, and Caucasians, to the attention of Google HR. 6 Google HR made excuses for the progressive activists, and waved away the misconduct, thus ensuring 7 nothing was done about the systemic problem. Throughout the summer of 2015, the Google employee 8 discussed the issue with several other concerned employees, who shared the same protected traits. In 9 early August of 2015, the Google employee then raised the issue of race and gender 10 discrimination/harassment at Google with Urs Hölzle, a Senior Vice President. This resulted in a 11 targeted campaign of harassment and threats of blacklisting directed at the Google employee, which 12 the Google management did nothing to stop; in fact, several members of management made statements 13 that had the net effect of encouraging “unambiguous social pecking” of political dissidents. 14 15 16 17 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28

22 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 108. On August 14, 2015, a Google employee, and several other employees, raised the same 21 issues of gender and racial discrimination with two other Senior Vice Presidents, in an email entitled 22 “Concerns regarding intimidation and blacklisting.” Google’s blacklists are discussed in more detail 23 below. 24 109. On August 19, 2015, in clear retaliation for the Google employee’s ongoing attempts to 25 end political discrimination at work, his HR Manager and Director issued the employee a Final 26 Written Warning letter. At no point did Google ever retract or repudiate the threats and attacks aimed 27 at the Google employee. 28 110. The warning alleged that the Google employee had violated Google’s policy to “create

23 Complaint

1 a respectful culture that is free of harassment, intimidation, or unlawful discrimination of any kind.” 2 The examples of the comments for which the Google employee was punished included the following:

3 a. “Are you insinuating that it is a ‘jerk move’ to share your opinion 4 about a political blog post if 98% of Googlers disagree with you, but it’s OK to share your opinion about a political blog post if 98% of 5 Googlers agree with you? If so, how do you reconcile this view with Urs’ request to help make Google a supportive place for minorities of 6 any kind?” 7 b. Can you point to the industryinfo post in which somebody expressed 8 an opinion in a way that ignored what others think?” 9 c. “Many Googlers have claimed that it is ‘harassment’ or some other 10 rule violation to critique articles that push the Social Justice political agenda. A few Googlers have openly called for others to be fired over 11 it. Do you support this viewpoint, and if so, can we add a clear 12 statement of banned opinions to the employee handbook so that everybody knows what the ground rules are?” 13 14 None of these comments remotely may be described as disorderly, disruptive, derogatory name-

15 calling, abusive or profane, intimidating or coercive (in stark contrast to the hostile postings aimed at 16 conservative, male, and/or Caucasian Google employees and at others who made a stand against 17 Google’s discriminatory treatment of employees in these protected categories). 18 111. The Final Written Warning itself repudiated Google’s own policy: “We strive to 2 19 maintain the open culture often associated with startups , in which everyone is a hands-on contributor 20 and feels comfortable sharing ideas and opinions.” Ironically, the Google employee had provided 21 ample evidence that Caucasian males who challenged certain assumptions behind the so-called “social 22 justice” agenda were routinely and unfairly branded as “racists,” “sexists,” or “bigots,” and targeted 23 for severe written abuse and career sabotage. 24 112. According to Google’s policies and procedures, the next step after a Final Written 25 Warning is termination. 26 27

2 28 Google is not a startup. Google operates 70 offices in more than 40 countries, and has a market capitalization over $700 billion.

24 Complaint

1 Google Failed to Protect Employees from Workplace Harassment 2 Due to Their Support for President Trump 3 113. In October of 2016, a Site Reliability Manager at Google became aware that a Google 4 employee was a supporter of President Trump, and held socially conservative views. These two 5 individuals did not work together, but had become acquainted through the company’s social mailing 6 lists. 7 114. At a group lunch where the manager was present, the Google employee expressed 8 concerns about Google’s intolerance of political minorities, such as conservatives. He stated that 9 employees whose politics closely aligned with the senior management’s views were receiving 10 favorable treatment, while political dissidents were unfairly denied promotions. SL became enraged 11 when he heard this, and stormed off. 12 115. In March 2017, the manager scheduled a surprise meeting with the Google employee’s 13 manager in an attempt to sabotage the Google employee’s annual performance review. 14 116. The manager falsely accused the Google employee of participating in an illegal 15 “doxxing” campaign to publish an individual’s personal information on the internet for the purpose of 16 harassment. SL also suggested that the Google employee was involved in illegal workplace 17 discrimination, which was absolutely false and unsupported. 18 117. When the Google employee later met with his manager, his manager stated that he was 19 very concerned about the doxxing allegation the manager had made. The Google employee provided 20 evidence that the manager’s claims were false and concocted, but his name and reputation were 21 already besmirched. 22 118. In March of 2017, the manager also posted on a political mailing list visible to all 23 80,000 employees to brag about his meeting with the Google employee’s manager for the purposes of 24 harassing and undermining him. 25 119. In this conversation, the manager made additional politically motivated threats directed 26 at members of the “conservatives@” mailing list community at Google. The manager threatened to 27 call in Employee Relations to comb through the mailing list archives to nitpick old postings for 28 possible Code of Conduct violations. Employee Relations at Google is tasked with investigating

25 Complaint

1 employees for policy violations, and building a case for discipline. They do not mediate disputes or 2 offer advice. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 120. The manager also threatened to apply Google’s stringent, politically intolerant and 15 legally questionable employee handbook speech code to communications taking place between friends 16 on non-work forums, off the clock. As the manager stated: “Interactions with coworkers outside of 17 work are covered by the same policies as interactions at work. So, for example, current Googlers 18 interacting with other current Googlers on [a private, external mailing list with several current and 19 former employees on it].” 20 121. The manager’s threats were reported to Google HR, and Google HR replied that the 21 manager had “crossed the line” with his comments. However, Google never made the manager retract 22 his threats or apologize for his sabotage attempts. 23 122. In August of 2017, the same manager posted threats of litigation and termination 24 directed against unnamed employees who spoke to outside bloggers in support of Damore and his 25 memo. Once again, Google did nothing. 26 Google Even Attempted to Stifle Conservative Parenting Styles 27 123. Google furnishes a large number of internal mailing lists catering to employees with 28

26 Complaint

1 alternative lifestyles, including furries, polygamy, transgenderism, and plurality3, for the purpose of 2 discussing sexual topics. The only lifestyle that seems to not be openly discussed on Google’s internal 3 forums is traditional heterosexual monogamy. 4 124. In March of 2017, Google HR strongly suggested to a Google employee that 5 conservative and traditional parenting techniques were unwelcome at Google. 6 125. Google HR brought up the following post that the employee made in response to a 7 Google thread in which someone specifically requested conservative parenting advice:

8 “If I had a child, I would teach him/her traditional gender roles and patriarchy 9 from a very young age. That’s the hardest thing to fix later, and our degenerate society constantly pushes the wrong message.” 10 11 126. Google HR stated, “We did not find that this post, on its face, violated any of Google’s 12 policies, but your choice of words could suggest that you were advocating for a system in which men 13 work outside the home and women do not, or that you were advocating for rigid adherence to gender 14 identity at birth. We trust that neither is what you intended to say. We are providing you with this 15 feedback so that you can better understand how some Googlers interpreted your statements, and so 16 that you are better equipped to ensure that Google is a place in which all Googlers are able to reach 17 their full potential.” In other words, Google scolded the Google Employee for, among other things, 18 believing that gender identity is set at birth biologically—a position held by the vast majority of the 19 world’s populace that Google professes to serve. 20 127. These examples were just a few instances of Google bending over backwards to support 21 liberal views while punishing conservative views. Google also placed Caucasian males in a lower 22 standing than women and underrepresented minorities. In May of 2017, one Google Employee 23 discovered and reported several offensive postings attacking Trump supporters and Caucasian males. 24 In June of 2017, HR responded: “Thanks for your time the other day and sharing your response. We 25 have reviewed the threads that you sent us and do not find them to be attacking traditionally 26 conservative views, but more extreme, “alt-right” views that seem to teeter into discrimination and 27 3 For instance, an employee who sexually identifies as “a yellow-scaled wingless dragonkin” and “an 28 expansive ornate building” presented a talk entitled “Living as a Plural Being” at an internal company event.

27 Complaint

1 possibly incite violence against certain groups of people.” Upon information and belief, Google never 2 made any such comments regarding posts supporting the violent vigilante organization, Antifa, or 3 other extreme leftist/anarchist organizations. In fact, a large number of Googlers have set their 4 corporate profile pictures to Antifa insignias, as seen in the image below. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Google Publicly Endorsed Blacklists 20 128. On or around August 2015, Adam Fletcher (“Fletcher”), a L6 SRE Manager at Google, 21 Jake McGuire (“McGuire”), a L7 SRE Manager at Google, and Nori Heikkinen (Heikkinen”), a L6 22 SRE Manager at Google all publicly endorsed blacklisting conservatives and actively preventing them 23 from seeking employment opportunities at Google. 24 129. Fletcher stated in reference to conservatives, who he categorized as “hostile voices,” “I 25 will never, ever hire/transfer you onto my team. Ever. I don’t care if you are perfect fit or technically 26 excellent or whatever. I will actively not work with you, even to the point where your team or product 27 is impacted by this decision. I’ll communicate why to your manager if it comes up.” 28

28 Complaint

1 130. McGuire and Heikkinen responded to Fletcher’s comment in agreement and came to 2 his defense, needling a Republican employee who raised concerns about the blacklists. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28

29 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

24 131. Google’s management-sanctioned blacklists were directed at specific Google 25 employees who tactfully expressed conservative viewpoints in politically-charged debates. In one 26 case, Jay Gengelbach, a L6 SWE Manager, publicly bragged about blacklisting an intern for failing to 27 change his conservative views. 28

30 Complaint

1 132. Other employees supported that decision, and one even stated to “[t]hrow that bad 2 apple away with no regrets.” They were referring to a human being. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

31 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

9 133. Kim Burchett (“Burchett”), a L7 SWE Manager, proposed creating an online 10 companywide blacklist of political conservatives inside Google. She was kind enough to suggest to her 11 readership that they might deserve “something resembling a trial” before being added. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

32 Complaint

1 2 134. On August 7, 2015, another manager, Collin Winter, posted threats directed at a Google 3 employee as a result of raising concerns of harassment and discrimination to Urs Holzle. Winter 4 stated: “I keep a written blacklist of people whom I will never allow on or near my team, based on 5 how they view and treat their coworkers. That blacklist got a little longer today.” 6 135. Also on August 7, 2015, another manager, Paul Cowan, reshared Collin Winter’s threat 7 to express his agreement with it and to indicate that he had also blacklisted Google employees with 8 perceived conservative views. Cowan stated: “If you express a dunderheaded opinion about religion, 9 about politics, or about ‘social justice’, it turns out I am allowed to think you’re a halfwit… I’m 10 perfectly within my rights to mentally categorize you in my dickhead box… Yes, I maintain (mentally, 11 and not (yet) publicly) [a blacklist]. If I had to work with people on this list, I would refuse, and try to 12 get them removed; or I would change teams; or I would quit.” 13 136. The primary purpose of these blacklists and suggested blacklists was to encourage and 14 coordinate the sabotage of promotions, performance reviews, and employment opportunities for those 15 with conservative viewpoints. 16 137. On August 14, 2015, a small group of employees submitted a complaint to the Senior 17 Vice President of Google HR, Laszlo Bock (“Bock”) and Senior Vice President of Legal David 18 Drummond (“Drummond”) regarding the blacklisting of conservatives at Google. 19 138. The group complained that there was an alarming number of individuals calling for 20 generic firings “if they express[ed] certain opinions on sociopolitical subjects.” The email further 21 claimed that this type of suppression “stifles debate and prevents the free exchange of ideas from 22 happening.” 23 139. The email went on to complain about several individuals who had also openly 24 proclaimed that they kept blacklists of Googlers they refused to work with on the basis of their 25 political views. 26 140. As evidenced by the fact that the blacklisting posts remain live on Google’s internal 27 corporate network, it is clear that Google took no action to prevent blacklisting. Google seems to 28 ignore most cases, and occasionally “coach” the worst offenders. However, Google will not openly

33 Complaint

1 come out against the practice; instead, it relies on crowdsourced harassment and “pecking” to enforce 2 social norms (including politics) that it feels it cannot write directly into its policies. 3 Google Provides Internal Tools to Facilitate Blacklisting 4 141. Google’s internal company systems allowed employees and managers to maintain a 5 “block list” of other employees with whom they did not wish to interact. For example, if A adds B to 6 her block list, B is not able to look A up in the company directory, communicate with A through the 7 internal instant messaging system, view A’s contact information or management chain, or see A’s 8 posts on internal social media. A and B would not be able to work together constructively on an 9 engineering project if either person blocked the other. 10 142. It is common knowledge within Google that employees were habitually added to block 11 lists for expressing conservative political views. In these comments, employees and managers 12 discussed using block lists to sabotage other Googlers’ job transfers onto their teams. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

34 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 143. When an employee was blocked by a manager in another department in retaliation for 24 reporting misconduct, Google HR defended the practice of blacklisting co-workers, stating: “Thanks 25 for sharing this. Co-workers are allowed to control who can access their social media accounts (like 26 G+ and hangouts). Unless your inability to access John’s social media accounts is negatively 27 impacting your ability to do your job, we don’t find any information to suggest that John is retaliating 28 against you in violation of policy.”

35 Complaint

1 144. On a separate occasion, another Googler posted: “Another day, another entry on a 2 blacklist I wish wasn’t necessary to keep.” This was reported to Google HR. Google HR responded 3 that the employee “was just expressing his own personal opinion on who he likes working with, 4 [therefore] we did not find his comments to violate Google policy.” 5 145. At a “TGIF” all-hands meeting on October 26, 2017, an employee directly asked 6 executives about the appropriateness of employees keeping political blacklists. Kent Walker, the 7 Senior Vice President of Legal, dodged the question rather than repudiating the practice of 8 blacklisting. 9 146. On September 8, 2017, a group of conservative employees met with Paul Manwell, 10 Google CEO Sundar Pichai’s Chief of Staff, to raise concerns about the ongoing problem of politically 11 motivated blacklisting, bullying, and discrimination at Google. This meeting was a direct response to 12 the company’s handling of the Damore situation. 13 147. The conservative employees shared their own experiences with discrimination and 14 asked the management for three major reforms. First, they asked for clarity around communication 15 policies, recommending that Google publish a clearer statement on what is acceptable and 16 unacceptable employee communication, and that any and all complaints about communication be 17 adjudicated through “a documented, fair, transparent, and appealable process.” In the meeting, the 18 employees pointed out that company leadership was sending mixed messages on whether it was even 19 permissible to criticize diversity policies. Second, the employees requested protection from retaliation, 20 asking the leadership to make a public statement that conservatives and supporters of Damore would 21 not be punished in any way for their political stances. Third, the conservative employees asked the 22 company to make it clear that the hostile language and veiled threats directed at Damore and his 23 supporters were unacceptable, and in the interest of making Google a healthier environment for 24 employees of all political stripes, the managers and VPs who made such statements should retract 25 them. On information and belief, none of these reforms ever took place. 26 148. In or around October 2017, a number of diversity activists at Google indicated that they 27 had met with VPs Danielle Brown and Eileen Naughton in order to ensure that they would be able to 28 continue blacklisting and targeting employees with whom they had political disagreements. On

36 Complaint

1 October 22, 2017, a conservative employee asked HR to help put him in contact with company 2 leadership to discuss the issue of targeted political harassment. This request was acknowledged by 3 Employee Relations on October 31, 2017. On December 22, 2017, Employee Relations indicated to 4 the employee that they would not be following up on his concerns about the systemic problems he 5 raised, and they considered the matter closed. 6 Google Maintains Secret Blacklists of Conservative Authors 7 149. On August 26, 2016, Curtis Yarvin, a well-known conservative blogger who has 8 reportedly advised Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel, and other members of the Trump administration, visited 9 the Google office to have lunch with an employee. This triggered a silent alarm, alerting security 10 personnel to escort him off the premises. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 150. It was later discovered that other influential conservative personalities, including Alex 22 Jones and Theodore Beale, are also on the same blacklist. 23 151. On or about September 15, 2016, a Google employee asked HR if the writers could be 24 removed from the blacklist. HR refused to help with the request, and instead, reconfigured the internal 25 system so that it was no longer possible to see who was on the blacklist. 26 Google Allowed Employees to Intimidate Conservatives with Threats of Termination 27 152. In the midst of any heated political discussion at Google, it has become commonplace 28 to see calls for conservatives to be fired or “encouraged to work elsewhere” for “cultural fit” reasons.

37 Complaint

1 Googlers are extremely proud of the fact that the company has created a “shared culture of shared 2 beliefs” and openly discriminates against job applicants who do not share the same political ideology. 3 153. One Google employee, referring to two conservative Googlers who criticized a feminist 4 blog post in July-August 2015 stated, “maybe we should just try laying off those people. Please.” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 154. Other Google employees also suggested terminating employees with conservative 27 values that did not comport with their own. One even suggested firing an employee twice simply to get 28 the point across—conservatives were not welcome at Google.

38 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8 155. Many Google employees resorted to name-calling, and one called conservative Google 9 employees that reported the discrimination they faced to Google HR “poisonous assholes.” The 10 employee stated that Google knew who the “assholes” were, and that they could be easily replaced. 11 Several conservative employees reported this to Google HR, but Google HR replied that this hateful 12 rhetoric was not a policy violation. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Google Enabled Discrimination against Caucasian Males 25 156. Liz Fong-Jones (“Fong-Jones”), an L5 SRE Manager at Google, repeatedly 26 discriminated against Caucasian males. 27 157. On April 4, 2015, a Caucasian male posted a comment about a “Diversity Town Hall” 28 meeting in which the management stated that affirmative action was impractical from a legal

39 Complaint

1 standpoint. Fong-Jones responded that she “could care less about being unfair to white men. You 2 already have all the advantages in the world.” 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

40 Complaint

1 2 158. Dozens of other employees joined the conversation to insult and belittle the Caucasian 3 male, characterizing his concerns about workplace discrimination as “stupid goddamn devil’s advocate 4 bullshit.” This received hundreds of “upvotes” from other Googlers showing their approval. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 159. The Caucasian male employee’s own manager replied to chastise him and to promise 20 that he would be punished for his apostasy. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

41 Complaint

1 160. In a follow-up conversation, Fong-Jones doubled-down on her position, stating that the 2 “benefit to everyone as a whole” justifies discrimination against white men. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 161. When Fong-Jones was reported to Google HR, Google’s initial reaction was to state 11 that since Fong-Jones was responding “to some pretty insensitive comments from other colleagues and 12 reacting to an environment that we know have been less than friendly to women and minorities at 13 times,” that her behavior was taken out of context and excused her comments. Google HR then stated 14 that “some empathy could be valuable as you reflect on the conversations.” 15 162. It was only after the matter continued to escalate that Google HR finally took “action,” 16 which they claimed ranged from “coaching to warnings.” 17 163. Chris Busselle (“Busselle”), a Manager in the Search organization, has frequently urged 18 other Googlers to engage in discriminatory practices to improve diversity. 19 164. On April 9, 2017, Busselle posted a message suggesting that employees should 20 leverage Google’s influence to have “cheesy white males” removed from speaker lineups at 21 conferences. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

42 Complaint

1 165. Busselle’s anti-white-male decree was reported to HR on April 21, 2017. On May 4, 2 2017, HR replied and said: “Regarding your concern about Chris Busselle’s G+ post, we have 3 reviewed and do not find that it violates our policies. You may of course feel free to provide him 4 feedback about his post.” 5 Google Was Unable to Respond to Logical Arguments 6 166. On November 15, 2015, a Google employee complained to Google HR regarding a

7 highly offensive post from an employee in the Developer Product Group. The post stated:

8 “If you put a group of 40-something white men in a room together and tell them to 9 come up with something creative or innovative, they’ll come back and tell you how enjoyable the process was, and how they want to do it again, but they come up with 10 fuck­all as a result!” (emphasis added.) 11 167. The Google employee stated that this statement was a violation of the Google Code of 12 Conduct, and was creating a hostile workplace environment as it targeted Caucasians, males, and 13 individuals over the age of 40. 14 168. Google HR responded: “Given the context of the post and that [the employee’s] main 15 point is to highlight that it is helpful to have diverse perspectives, it doesn’t appear that the post to 16 [sic] violates our policies.” 17 169. Perplexed, the Google employee responded to Google HR by replacing the term “40- 18 something white men” with “women” and asked how that was not a breach of conduct. Google failed 19 to respond. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

43 Complaint

1 170. Google’s lack of response and engagement evidenced Google’s biases and its inability 2 to even recognize them when someone pointed them out. As demonstrated above, Google allowed 3 individuals to insult and discriminate against political conservatives, Caucasians, and males with 4 impunity. 5 171. A perfect example of Google’s relaxed attitude toward discrimination against 6 Caucasians and males is seen in Burchett’s G+ posts. As seen below, Burchett states that in the 7 promotions committee which she serves on where she helps decide which T5 Engineers are promoted 8 to the T6 level, she stated, “2/4 committee members were women. Yay! 4/4 committee members were 9 white. Boo! 12/15 candidates were white men. Boo!” Further in the thread, Burchett highlights the 10 divisiveness of her original post by noting that it was not fair even to talk about women when “POC” 11 or “people of color” weren’t getting enough airtime in the discussion. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

44 Complaint

1 172. Upon information and belief, Burchett continued to make hiring and promoting 2 decisions at Google and was not reprimanded by Google, even though Burchett’s posts were reported 3 to Google HR and to the Senior Vice President of Legal in a formal complaint. 4 173. These examples make it clear that 1) Google discriminates against conservatives, 5 Caucasians, and males and 2) that Google has fostered an environment where this kind of 6 mistreatment is not only allowed, commonplace, accepted—but is, in fact, encouraged, enabled, and 7 rewarded. 8 Google’s “Diversity” Policies Impede Internal Mobility and New Hires 9 174. Another Google employee, who first began working for Google over a decade ago as a 10 Software Engineer has suffered similar discrimination, harassment, and retaliation for his perceived 11 conservative views, his gender, and his Caucasian race. 12 175. From 2008 till 2016, the Google employee was able to move from one team to another 13 with ease after a project was cancelled or completed, and during this eight-year time period, he 14 transferred between approximately five different teams. 15 176. Although the Google employee moved from team to team at Google, the Google 16 employee consistently received at least “Meets Expectations” after his promotion in 2008 until 2015, 17 with one “Needs Improvement” rating in 2015—a month after taking bereavement leave to mourn the 18 death of his grandmother. 19 177. When the Google employee learned that a project he was working on was moving to 20 another country, he began looking for a new team to join as he had done numerous times in the past. 21 However, this time, it was much more difficult. 22 178. The Google employee reached out to more than 10 different hiring managers, but few 23 seemed interested in having him join their team, and only one had extended a firm offer by the end of 24 January 2017. 25 179. Upon information and belief, the Google employee was not selected due to the fact that 26 the hiring managers were looking solely for “diverse” individuals, and as a Caucasian male, the 27 Google employee did not help fill their mandatory (and illegal) quotas. The Google employee was 28 otherwise completely qualified for the positions for which he applied. This discrimination was

45 Complaint

1 confirmed a few days later when on February 2, 2017, the Google employee’s former director initiated 2 a “Diversity Team Kickoff” with the intent to freeze headcount so that teams could find diversity 3 candidates to help fill the empty roles. Google was specifically looking for women and non-Caucasian 4 individuals to fill these roles. 5 180. In a further display of disregard for the law, Charles Mendis (“Mendis”), an 6 Engineering Director at Google, informed his team that he was “freezing [headcount]” so that he could 7 reserve future open positions for diverse candidates. Mendis stated, “For each position we have open 8 work on getting multiple candidates including a diversity candidate.” He then went on to state, “Often 9 the first qualified candidate is not a diversity candidate, waiting to have a few qualified candidates and 10 being patient is important.” 11 181. This discrimination against Caucasians and males was not only allowed at Google, but 12 was supported, and actively encouraged. 13 182. Facing the threat of termination unless he met a looming March, 2017 transfer deadline 14 imposed by HR, the Google employee was finally able to secure a position with the a team in the Ads 15 and Commerce Product Area. 16 183. The team was a new area for the Google employee, but his supervisor praised his work 17 and his ability to learn the new field so quickly. On or around April, 2017, a few months after he 18 started working with his new team, the Google employee’s reviewing manager stated in a written 19 performance review, “[The Google employee] has ramped up fast on ML, a new area for him,” and his 20 manager further told the Google employee that he was on track to receive either an Exceeds or 21 Strongly Exceeds Expectations rating in the next performance cycle. 22 184. The Google employee was further told during his weekly one-on-one meetings with his 23 manager in July, 2017 that he was doing fine work. The Google employee’s manager had no 24 complaints or issues to discuss with him. 25 185. Although the Google employee was coming along nicely in his new team, he did not 26 feel that it was a good fit due to the lack of coding involved and was frustrated with the pace of 27 bureaucracy on the team. Therefore, the Google employee reached out to Stephen Gillet, (“Gillet”) of 28

46 Complaint

1 the Google X team, whom he had previously corresponded with back when the Google employee was 2 leaving one of his previous teams. 3 186. Gillet was receptive to the idea of re-engaging with the Google employee for the 4 purposes of transferring him over, and connected him to a few other members of the team, including 5 Will Robinson (“Robinson”), the hiring manager of Google X. 6 187. While the Google employee was in the middle of discussing the transfer, Damore’s 7 memo began going viral. On August 4, 2017, the Google employee commented in support of 8 Damore’s memo and its defense of the conservative ideology, and stated: 9 “Thank you for raising this important issue James. All too often I believe this 10 subject is portrayed very one-sidedly here at Google, and with real consequences 11 for those who dare to question the dominant narrative.”

12 The Google employee then went on vacation after that until approximately August 15, 2017. 13 188. While the Google employee was out of the office, his director sent an organization- 14 wide email encouraging all employees to attend “Ads Diversity and Inclusion Week”, while 15 simultaneously condemning Damore’s memo, stating that “misogyny and racism are not ‘political 16 views.’” 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

47 Complaint

1 189. On or around September 6, 2017, less than one week before managers begin meeting to 2 determine calibration ratings, the Google employee suddenly and suspiciously received verbal 3 feedback from his manager that he was in danger of not meeting expectations. On the next day, 4 Robinson emailed the Google employee that the “[next] (and near-final) step in the process on our side 5 would be a chat with your current manager. This is a normal piece of due diligence that I do for all 6 transfers, and it’s usually the last step before we make a formal transfer offer.” 7 190. On September 12, 2017, the Google employee informed his reviewing manager of his 8 desire to join the Google X team. His reviewing manager claimed to be supportive of the transfer, even 9 offering to expedite it to ensure it would go through before performance reviews are finalized. 10 191. On September 19, 2017, during the weekly one-on-one meetings, his reviewing 11 manager began discussing the Google employee’s future with the team, and told the Google employee 12 that he needs to deliver a sizeable project in the final quarter of the year with “no room for failure.” 13 The Google employee understood this statement to mean that his performance review and his transfer 14 were now in jeopardy. 15 192. A few days later, on September 22, 2017, the Google employee received an email from 16 Robinson titled “Bad News.” The email went on to state that “[a]fter a lot of thought and discussion, 17 I’ve come to the conclusion that the right fit isn’t there for you and our team at this time.” 18 193. Robinson’s sudden and cryptic turnaround, along with the Google employee’s 19 reviewing manager’s negative verbal feedback, just a few weeks after the Google employee’s 20 comment of support in Damore’s memo, made it clear that the transfer was subverted by the Google 21 employee’s management chain at Google due to his political views. 22 194. On or about October 12, 2017, the Google employee confronted his reviewing manager 23 during their one-on-one meeting about his call with Robinson, but his reviewing manager naturally 24 denied any wrongdoing and stated that he only “had a 15-minute conversation regarding [the Google 25 employee’s] strengths and weaknesses.” 26 195. On or about October 25, 2017, two weeks after that weekly meeting, the Google 27 employee received a “Needs Improvement” rating. This occurred despite the fact that his reviewing 28 manager had been assuring the Google employee every week since September 19, 2017, that he had

48 Complaint

1 been meeting expectations. The Google employee also argued that the rating was unfair because he 2 only learned of his alleged “poor performance” on September 6, 2017. 3 196. Because this “Needs Improvement” rating was his second one (during his ten-year 4 tenure at Google), the Google employee was also automatically placed on a Performance Improvement 5 Plan (“PIP”). This was the first time the Google employee had received any written feedback since 6 joining his new team that his performance was in need of improvement. 7 197. The Google employee had worked at Google for nearly a decade without incident, and 8 as soon as Googlers learned he supported conservative ideologies, he lost his transfer to a different 9 team, received a poor performance rating, and was placed on a PIP. 10 198. Plaintiffs and class members may point to innumerable other examples of illegal and 11 discriminatory conduct at Google. For the sake of relative brevity, only a handful of examples have 12 been described in this Complaint. Attached as “Exhibit B” to the Complaint is a compilation of posts 13 and “memes” from Google’s internal message boards designed for employee use. All 80,000+ Google 14 employees have access to an internal meme generator site that is described as "a space for sharing 15 internal news, announcements, passive-aggressive statements, awesomeness, witty remarks, Reddit 16 OC and cynical-in-a-good-way experiences on Google and outside." Employees often use the 17 memegen tool to post offhand comments and observations for others to see; there is a voting 18 mechanism that puts the most popular entries on the top of the page. Other entries on Exhibit B are 19 from widespread Google internal communications available to employees. 20 CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 21 199. Plaintiffs bring their first, second, third, eighth, ninth, and tenth causes of action 22 pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382 on behalf of themselves and on behalf of 23 the following proposed Class and Subclasses, each of which Plaintiffs are members:

24 Global Class: All employees of Google discriminated against by Google in 25 California due to their perceived conservative views, their race, and/or their gender at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing 26 of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Class”).

27 Political Subclass: All employees of Google discriminated against due to their 28 perceived conservative views by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date

49 Complaint

of trial in this action (“Political Subclass”). 1

2 Gender Subclass: All employees of Google discriminated against by Google in California for being males at any time during the time period beginning one year 3 prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Gender Subclass”). 4

5 Race Subclass: All employees of Google discriminated against by Google in California for being Caucasian at any time during the time period beginning one 6 year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action 7 (“Race Subclass”) (Political Subclass, Gender Subclass, and Race Subclass, collectively referred to as “Subclasses”). 8 Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the definitions of Class and Subclasses following discovery. 9 200. Excluded from the Class and Subclasses is anyone employed by counsel in this action, 10 and any judge to whom this action is assigned and his or her immediate family members. 11 201. This action is brought, and may properly be maintained, as a class action under Code 12 of Civil Procedure section 382, because each Class and Subclass is a well-defined community of 13 interest in the litigation, and each proposed Class and Subclass is easily ascertainable. There also 14 exists a sufficiently numerous classes or subclasses, and substantial benefits from certification that 15 render proceeding as Classes or Subclasses, superior to joinder, filing individually, or other 16 alternatives. 17 202. Numerosity and Ascertainability: The size of the Class and Subclasses makes a class 18 action both necessary and efficient. Upon information and belief, Google employee approximately 19 80,000 employees located across California. Members of the Class and Subclasses are ascertainable 20 through Google’s records, but are so numerous that joinder of all individual Class and Subclass 21 members would be impractical. 22 203. Predominant Common Questions of Law and Fact: Common questions of law and fact 23 affecting the rights of all Class and Subclass members predominate over individualized issues. These 24 common questions include, but are not limited to: 25 a. whether Google has a systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against 26 employees due to their perceived conservative political views; 27 28

50 Complaint

1 b. whether Google has a systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against 2 employees due to their gender; 3 c. whether Google has a systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against 4 employees due to their race; 5 d. whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees 6 due to their perceived conservative political views violates California Labor Code 7 section 1101 and 1102 et seq.; 8 e. whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees 9 due to their gender violates the Fair Employment and Housing Act; 10 f. whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees 11 due to their race violates the Fair Employment and Housing Act; 12 g. whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees 13 due to their perceived conservative political views was willful; 14 h. whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees 15 due to their gender was willful; 16 i. whether Google’s systemic policy and/or practice of discriminating against employees 17 due to their race was willful; 18 j. whether Google’s policies or practices violate Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; 19 k. whether equitable remedies, injunctive relief, compensatory damages, and/or 20 attorneys’ fees for the Class and/or Subclasses are warranted. 21 204. Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class and Subclasses as a 22 whole because Plaintiffs are employees of Google in California during the respective Class Periods, 23 who were discriminated against for their perceived conservative views, their gender, and/or their race. 24 205. Adequacy of Representation: Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the 25 interests of the Class and Subclasses because their individual interests are consistent with, and not 26 opposed to, the interests of the Class and Subclasses, and because Plaintiffs have selected counsel 27 who have the requisite resources and ability to prosecute this case as a class action and are 28 experienced labor and employment attorneys who have successfully litigated other cases involving

51 Complaint

1 similar issues and have litigated class actions. 2 206. Superiority of Class Mechanism. Class certification is appropriate because common 3 questions of law and fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members. 4 Google’s liability in this case is based on uniform company policies and procedures. The amount 5 owed to each individual Class Member is small in relation to the expense and burden of individual 6 litigation to recover that amount. The prosecution of separate actions against Google by individual 7 Class Members could create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications which could establish 8 incompatible standards of conduct for Google. A class action is superior to other available methods 9 for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy set forth herein. 10 LEGAL CLAIMS 11

12 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1101 13 (By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Political Subclass Against all Defendants) 14 207. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here.

15 208. Employers may not discharge or discriminate against an employee for engaging in

16 political activities or the exercise of any rights afforded him. California Labor Code section 1101 17 prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids 18 or controls, or tends to control, their employees’ political activities. 19 209. California Labor Code section 1105 states, “Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the 20 injured employee from recovering damages from his employer for injury suffered through a violation 21 of this chapter.” 22 210. Upon violation of this section preventing employers from controlling political activities 23 of employees, employees have a right of action for damages for breach of an employment contract. 24 25 Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481. 26 211. Plaintiffs, and all members in the Political Subclass, engaged in protected political 27 activity. Plaintiffs, and the Political Subclass members, expressed their political viewpoints, and as a 28 result were discriminated against throughout the respective Class Periods by Google, which does not

52 Complaint

1 share their political views.

2 212. As a direct result of the aforesaid violations of law, as well as the job retaliation set

3 forth herein, Plaintiffs and Political Subclass have sustained, and will continue to sustain for a period

4 of time in the future, compensatory and general damages in an amount according to proof at the trial 5 of this action. 6 213. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional 7 retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and 8 injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities 9 in an amount to be determined at trial. 10 214. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious. 11 Plaintiffs and the Political Subclass are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an 12 amount to be determined at trial. 13 215. Because this claim arising under California state law is a matter of public concern, and 14 affects the public at large, Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses pray for attorney’s fees and 15 expenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. 16 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 17 Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102 (By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Political Subclass Against all Defendants) 18 216. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 19 217. California Labor Code section 1102 makes it illegal for an employer to threaten 20 employees with discharge as a means of coercing or influencing employees’ political activities. 21 218. California Labor Code section 1105 states, “Nothing in this chapter shall prevent the 22 injured employee from recovering damages from his employer for injury suffered through a violation 23 of this chapter.” 24 219. Upon violation of this section preventing employers from controlling political activities 25 of employees, employees have a right of action for damages for breach of an employment contract. 26 Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481. 27 28

53 Complaint

1 220. Plaintiffs and the Political Subclass engaged in protected political activity. Plaintiffs, 2 and the Political Subclass members, expressed their political viewpoints, and as a result were 3 threatened and coerced throughout the respective Class Period by Google, who does not share their 4 political views. 5 221. As a direct result of the aforesaid violations of law, as well as the job retaliation set 6 forth herein, Plaintiffs, and the Political Subclass, have sustained, and will continue to sustain for a 7 period of time in the future, compensatory and general damages in an amount according to proof at the 8 trial of this action. 9 222. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional 10 retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and 11 injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities 12 in an amount to be determined at trial. 13 223. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious. 14 Plaintiffs and the Political Subclass are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an 15 amount to be determined at trial. 16 224. Because this claim arising under California state law is a matter of public concern, and 17 affects the public at large, Plaintiffs, and the Class and Subclasses, pray for attorney’s fees and 18 expenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 19 Workplace Discrimination Due to Gender and/or Race in Violation of FEHA 20 (By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Gender and Race Subclasses Against all Defendants) 21 225. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 22 226. At all relevant times, Google was an employer covered by the Fair Employment and 23 Housing Act (“FEHA”), and Plaintiffs and the Gender and Race Subclasses were covered employees. 24 227. Google violated FEHA when they discriminated against Plaintiffs and the Gender and 25 Race Subclass members because of their gender and/or race by, among other things, taking into 26 account gender and/or race when considering promotions, failing to protect employees from negative 27 comments made about Caucasian men as they protected members of other protected classes, and 28 ignoring formal requests for redress from Google managers and the Human Resources department.

54 Complaint

1 228. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional gender 2 and/or race discrimination, Plaintiffs, and the member of the Gender and Race Subclasses, have 3 suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and injury, stress, humiliation, 4 anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount to be 5 determined at trial. 6 229. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious. 7 Plaintiffs, and Gender and Race Subclass members, are therefore entitled to an award of punitive 8 damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 9 230. FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a 10 prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are 11 incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

12 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b). FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Workplace Harassment in Violation of FEHA 14 (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 15 231. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 16 232. The FEHA provides that it is unlawful for an employer to harass an employee because 17 of, inter alia, the employee’s gender and/or race. 18 233. Furthermore, it is unlawful to harass an employ for informing internal management 19 about possible violations of the law. 20 234. Google constantly treated Plaintiffs in a discriminatory and harassing fashion after 21 they reported labor code and California Civil code violations, thus creating a hostile work 22 environment. 23 235. The harassment was based on Plaintiffs’ gender and/or race, and their constant 24 reminders to Google to not break the law by taking into account protected categories, and giving 25 underrepresented minorities and women special preferences when making hiring or promotion 26 decisions. Any discussions to the contrary were ignored. 27 236. Google’s conduct was so severe and pervasive that it altered Plaintiffs’ conditions of 28 employment.

55 Complaint

1 237. Google’s treatment of Plaintiffs caused them to consider the work environment to be 2 hostile and/or abusive, and a reasonable person in their circumstances would have similarly 3 considered the work environment to be hostile and/or abusive. 4 238. Plaintiffs made it clear to Google that such harassment was unwelcome by reporting it 5 to Google HR directly multiple times. However, Google failed to act. 6 239. Google’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs’ harm. 7 240. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional 8 harassment, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and 9 injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities 10 in an amount to be determined at trial. 11 241. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious. 12 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at 13 trial. 14 242. FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a 15 prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are 16 incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

17 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b). FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 19 (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 20 243. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 21 244. California Government Code § 12940(h) provides that it is unlawful for any employer 22 or person to discriminate against any person because the person has opposed any practices forbidden 23 under the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code § 12940, et seq. 24 245. Plaintiffs opposed Google’s unlawful hiring and promoting practices in violation of 25 California Government Code § 12940 et seq. by complaining to their supervisors and Google HR on 26 several occasions. 27 246. Specially, Plaintiffs reported to Google numerous occasions of hostile comments 28 made by coworkers regarding the Plaintiffs’ gender and/or race.

56 Complaint

1 247. Plaintiffs further complained regarding the unlawful hiring and promoting practices 2 taking place at Google. 3 248. In retaliation for objecting to such unlawful conduct in violation of FEHA, Google 4 took adverse employment action against Plaintiffs by issuing them verbal and written warnings, and 5 by providing them with decreased performance reviews. 6 249. There is a causal link between Plaintiffs complaining to report Google’s illegal 7 activities, harassment, discrimination, and the subsequent retaliation. 8 250. In so retaliating against Plaintiffs, Google violated the Fair Employment and Housing 9 Act, among other statute and California common law. 10 251. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional 11 retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and 12 injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities 13 in an amount to be determined at trial. 14 252. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious. 15 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at 16 trial. 17 253. FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a 18 prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are 19 incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

20 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b). SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 21 Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy (Tameny) 22 (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 23 254. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 24 255. Reprimanding employees in retaliation for resisting the violations of laws that secure 25 important public policies contravenes those policies, and gives rise to a common law action in tort. 26 256. Plaintiffs were given verbal and written warnings after complaining about Google’s 27 unlawful hiring and promoting practices. Google’s violation of Plaintiffs’ statutory and constitutional 28 rights is inconsistent and hostile to the public’s interest.

57 Complaint

1 257. Google’s arguments for reprimanding Plaintiffs are pretextual in nature and calculated 2 to disguise the motivating basis of the adverse employment action to which Plaintiffs were subjected. 3 258. As a direct and proximate result of Google willful, knowing and intentional retaliation, 4 Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and injury, stress, 5 humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount to 6 be determined at trial. 7 259. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious. 8 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. 9 260. FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a 10 prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are incurring, 11 attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to reasonable 12 attorneys’ fees and costs. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102.5 14 (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 15 261. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 16 262. California Labor Code § 1102.5 (a), in pertinent part, provides: “An employer, or any 17 person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or 18 policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement 19 agency, to a person with authority over the employee, or to another employee who has authority to 20 investigate, discover, or correct the violation or noncompliance, or from providing information to, or 21 testifying before, any public body conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry, if the employee 22 has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or 23 a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation, regardless of whether 24 disclosing the information is part of the employee's job duties.” Labor Code § 1102.5 subsections (c) 25 & (d) provides: An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate 26 against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or 27 federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. (d) 28

58 Complaint

1 An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee 2 for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment.” 3 263. As set forth above, Plaintiff opposed the wrongful and illegal practices by Google in 4 regards to Google’s practices of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation of individuals based on 5 their protected traits. 6 264. Thereafter, Google took a series of retaliatory adverse employment actions against 7 Plaintiffs such as giving them poor performance reviews and denying them promotions. 8 265. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional 9 retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and 10 injury, stress, humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities 11 in an amount to be determined at trial. 12 266. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious. 13 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 Failure to Prevent Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 15 (By Plaintiffs Against All Defendants) 16 267. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 17 268. At all relevant times, Google was required, but failed, to take all reasonable steps 18 necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation under Government Code § 12940(k), 19 et seq. 20 269. Upon information and belief, Google’s lack of any meaningful investigation into 21 Plaintiffs’ complaints of coworkers’ discriminatory, harassing, and retaliatory behavior constituted 22 failure to prevent discrimination under the FEHA. 23 270. As a direct and proximate result of Google’s willful, knowing and intentional failure 24 to take all reasonable steps necessary to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, Plaintiffs 25 have suffered and will continue to suffer emotional and physical distress and injury, stress, 26 humiliation, anxiety, depression, and other employment benefits and job opportunities in an amount 27 to be determined at trial. 28 271. These actions of Google were so cold, callous and reckless as to be malicious.

59 Complaint

1 Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages in an amount to be determined at 2 trial. 3 272. FEHA provides for an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by a 4 prevailing plaintiff in an action brought under its provision. Plaintiffs have incurred, and are 5 incurring, attorneys’ fees and costs. Thus, should Plaintiffs prevail at trial, they will be entitled to

6 reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, pursuant to Govt. Code § 12965(b). NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 Unfair Business Practices, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200 et seq. 8 (By Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the Plaintiff Class Against All Defendants) 9 273. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 10 274. Google’s violations of the California Labor Code, and California statutory and common 11 law, and other provisions, as described above in the causes of action listed in this Complaint, all 12 constitute unfair and unlawful business practices pursuant to Business & Professions Code Section 13 17200 et seq. 14 275. The unlawful conduct described herein resulted in harm to Plaintiffs and the Class. 15 276. Because the conduct alleged herein is ongoing, and there is no indication that either 16 Google will cease their unlawful conduct described herein, Plaintiffs and the Class and Subclasses 17 request that this Court enjoin Google from further violations of California’s laws. TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 18 Declaratory Relief (By All Plaintiffs on Behalf of Themselves and the Subclasses against All Defendants) 19 277. Plaintiffs repeat and incorporate each paragraph above as if fully set forth here. 20 278. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between the parties relating to the legal 21 rights and duties of the parties as set forth above, for which Plaintiffs and the Subclasses desire a 22 declaration of rights and other relief available pursuant to the California Declaratory Judgment Act, 23 C.C.P. §1060 et seq. 24 279. A declaratory judgment is necessary and proper in that Plaintiffs and the Subclasses 25 contend that Google has committed and continues to commit the violations set forth above and, on 26 information and belief, Google will deny that it has done so and/or will continue to commit such acts. 27

28

60 Complaint

1 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

3 respectfully pray for relief and judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, as follows, in

4 amounts according to proof: 5 1. For an order certifying this action as a class action; 6 2. For an order appointing Plaintiffs as Class/Subclass representatives, and appointing 7 Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class/Subclass counsel; 8 3. For judgment in favor of Plaintiffs against Defendants; 9 4. For preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Google from violating 10 California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 et seq. by discriminating, harassing, and retaliating 11 against individuals with conservative political views; 12 13 5. For declaratory relief; 14 6. For general, special and compensatory damages; 15 7. For pre-judgment interest where allowed in an amount according to proof; 16 8. For attorneys’ fees under applicable provisions of law, including but not limited to 17 FEHA, Cal. Labor Code 1102.5, and Code of Civil Procedure § 1021.5;

18 9. For costs of suit incurred herein; and

19 10. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

20 Date: January 8, 2018 DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 21

22 ______23 Harmeet K. Dhillon Ravdeep S. Grewal 24 Gregory R. Michael

25 Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Damore, David 26 Gudeman, and all others similarly situated

27 28

61 Complaint

1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 2 Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury for all claims. 3 4 Date: January 8, 2018 DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.

5 ______6 Harmeet K. Dhillon 7 Ravdeep S. Grewal Gregory R. Michael 8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Damore, David 9 Gudeman, and all others similarly situated 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

62 Complaint

EXHIBIT A

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore - damore@ July 2017 Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss ​

Reply to public response and misrepresentation 1 TL;DR 2 Background 2 Google’s biases 2 Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3 Personality differences 4 Men’s higher drive for status 5 Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap 5 The harm of Google’s biases 6 Why we’re blind 7 Suggestions 8

Reply to public response and misrepresentation I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many†personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL;DR ● Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. ​ ​ ● This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. ● The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. ○ Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression ○ Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression ● Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. ● Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background1 ​ People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document2. Google has several biases and honest ​ ​ discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices: ​

______

1 ​This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

2 ​Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching ​ extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech3 ​ At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: ● They’re universal across human cultures ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ● The underlying traits are highly heritable ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ______

3 ​ Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

Personality differences Women, on average, have more: ​

● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also ​ ​ interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). ​ ​ ○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even ​ within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. ○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support. ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). ​ ​ ​ ○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater ​ ​ ​ nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits." Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop ​ assuming that gender gaps imply sexism. ​

Men’s higher drive for status We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on4, pushing many men into these higher ​ ​ paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of ​ work-related deaths. ​

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them: ● Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this). ● Women on average are more cooperative ○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. ○ This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in ​ education. ​ ● Women on average are more prone to anxiety ______

4 For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. ​ ​ ​ Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. ​ ​ ​ ○ Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. ● Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for ​ ​ status on average ○ Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in ​ ​ ​ tech. ● The male gender role is currently inflexible ○ Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles.

Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race5 ​ ● A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates ● Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by ​ ​ ​ decreasing the false negative rate ● Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) ● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal

discrimination6 ​ ______5 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs. These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is ​ both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology7 that can irreparably harm Google. ​ ​

Why we’re blind We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science ​ concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, ​ ​ climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates ​ ​ enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social ​ constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and ​ ​ uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is ​ ​ ​ interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.

______7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” 8 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of aristocracy. 9 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the ​ ​ same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. 10 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.” This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains ​ ​ discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and ​ ​ ​ shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender ​ roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to: ● De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of ​ ​ costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” ● Stop alienating conservatives. ​ ​ ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. ○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those ​ ​ with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required ​ ​ for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. ● Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. ● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. ______11 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or ​ ​ insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

● Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. ○ Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. ○ There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber. ○ These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives. ○ I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination. ● Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity. ○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination. ○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity. ○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX. ● De-emphasize empathy. ○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and ​ dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about ​ the facts. ● Prioritize intention. ○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions. ○ Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with ​ violence and isn’t backed by evidence. ​ ​ ​ ​ ● Be open about the science of human nature. ○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems. ● Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees. ○ We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory. ○ Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown. ○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. ​ ​ ​ Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the ​ ​ ​ training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).

EXHIBIT B

Anti-conservative postings 1

Anti-conservative postings 2

Anti-conservative postings 3

Anti-conservative postings 4

Anti-conservative postings 5

Anti-conservative postings 6

Anti-conservative postings 7

Anti-conservative postings 8

Anti-conservative postings 9

Anti-conservative postings 10

Anti-conservative postings 11

Anti-conservative postings 12

Anti-conservative postings 13

Anti-conservative postings 14

Anti-conservative postings 15

Anti-conservative postings 16

Anti-conservative postings 17

Anti-conservative postings 18

Anti-conservative postings 19

Anti-conservative postings 20

Anti-conservative postings 21

Anti-conservative postings 22

Anti-conservative postings 23

Anti-conservative postings 24

Anti-conservative postings 25

Anti-conservative postings 26

Anti-conservative postings 27

Anti-conservative postings 28

Anti-conservative postings 29

Anti-conservative postings 30

Anti-conservative postings 31

Anti-conservative postings 32

Anti-conservative postings 33

Anti-conservative postings 34

Anti-conservative postings 35

Anti-conservative postings 36

Anti-conservative postings 37

Google endorsing political violence 38

Google endorsing political violence 39

Google endorsing political violence 40

Google endorsing political violence 41

Google endorsing political violence 42

Google endorsing political violence 43

Google endorsing political violence 44

Google endorsing political violence 45

Google endorsing political violence 46

Anti-Caucasian postings 47

Anti-Caucasian postings 48

Anti-Caucasian postings 49

Anti-Caucasian postings 50

Anti-Caucasian postings 51

Anti-Caucasian postings 52

Anti-Caucasian postings 53

Anti-Caucasian postings 54

Anti-Caucasian postings 55

Anti-Caucasian postings 56

Anti-Caucasian postings 57 Anti-Caucasian postings 58

Anti-Caucasian postings 59

Anti-Caucasian postings 60

Anti-Caucasian postings 61

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 62

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 63

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 64

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 65

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 66

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 67

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 68

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 69

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 70

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 71

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 72

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 73

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 74

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 75

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 76

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 77

Googler reactions to the Damore memo 78

Appendix 79

Appendix 80

Appendix 81

Appendix 82

Appendix 83

Appendix 84

Appendix 85

Appendix 86

Appendix 87

Case 32-CA-205351 - 2 - At the conclusion of the summit, the HR manager sought out the Charging Party and (b) (6), (b) (7)( (b) (6), (b) (7 invited to contact with further questions or comments.

(b) (6), (b) (7 Shortly thereafter, the Charging Party drafted a memorandum outlining concerns about the effectiveness and necessity of the Employer’s programs, (b) (6), (b) particularly those targeted for women working for the Employer. initially shared the document with the organizers of the June summit through a feedback form they (b) (6), (b) (b) (6), (b) ( had provided. On July 2, posted memorandum in an internal Employer- provided discussion group called “coffeebeans,” the purpose of which is to discuss the Employer’s diversity and inclusion programs. From July 2 through August 3, the (b) (6), (b) (7 Charging Party shared memorandum with other employees, often incorporating (b) (6), (b) (7 (b) (6), (b) their suggestions into memorandum. On August 3, posted the memorandum to another Employer-provided discussion group called “skeptics,” a larger forum that (b) (6), (b) (7 provided document with more potential readers. Around that same time, numerous employees complained to HR about the Charging Party’s memorandum and at least two female engineering candidates for employment withdrew from consideration, citing the memo as their reason for doing so. Additionally, at least one employee contacted the Charging Party directly and threatened retaliation against (b) (6), (b) (7)( 1

In the version of the document upon which the Employer based its investigation, the Charging Party posited that the Employer had a left-leaning “monoculture” that created an “ideological echo chamber” where contrary viewpoints were shamed into (b) (6), (b) silence. included specific critiques of many of the Employer’s inclusion and (b) (6), (b) diversity policies and a long list of suggestions to correct for the biases identified. (b) (6), (b) ( also argued that there were immutable biological differences between men and women that were likely responsible for the gender gap in the tech industry at large and at the Employer in particular, including, inter alia: • Women are more prone to “neuroticism,” resulting in women experiencing higher anxiety and exhibiting lower tolerance for stress, which “may contribute to . . . the lower number of women in high stress jobs”; • Men demonstrate greater variance in IQ than women, such that there are more (b) (6), (b) ( men at both the top and bottom of the distribution. Thus, posited, the Employer’s preference to hire from the “top of the curve” may result in a candidate pool with fewer females than those of “less-selective” tech companies. Throughout the memo, the Charging Party included “limiting language,” using disclaimers such as “studies show” and “on average” and noting that these differences didn’t necessarily apply to all individuals.

(b) (6), (b) (7) 1 email read, in relevant part: “You’re a misogynist and a terrible human. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F[***] you.” The employee was issued a final warning for sending this email. Case 32-CA-205351 - 3 - (b) (6), (b) (7)(C) On the Employer determined that certain portions of the Charging Party’s memorandum violated existing policies on harassment and discrimination.2 Later that evening, the Employer terminated the Charging Party’s employment. The HR manager and the director of the Charging Party’s team prepared written talking (b) (6), (b) ( points in advance, which the director read to inform the Charging Party of discharge. The talking points stated, in pertinent part: Your post advanced and relied on offensive gender stereotypes to suggest that women cannot be successful in the same kinds of jobs at [the Employer] as men. . . . I want to make clear that our decision is based solely on the part of your post that generalizes and advances stereotypes about women versus men. It is not based in any way on the portions of your post that discuss [the Employer’s] programs or trainings, or how [the Employer] can improve its inclusion of differing political views. Those are important points. I also want to be clear that this is not about you expressing yourself on political issues or having political views that are different than others at the company. Having a different political view is absolutely fine. Advancing gender stereotypes is not. The Employer’s CEO subsequently sent a company-wide email that largely echoed the talking points used for the Charging Party’s discharge, expressing its commitment to the dual values of freedom of expression and equal employment opportunity. The email reassured employees that the Employer strongly supported their right to express dissenting viewpoints and critique the Employer’s programs, but would not tolerate arguments that advanced harmful stereotypes. Although the email did not refer to the Charging Party by name, it referenced (b) (6), (b) (7memorandum.

ACTION

Assuming, arguendo, that the Charging Party’s conduct was concerted and for (b) (6), (b) (7 mutual aid and protection, we conclude that memorandum included both (b) (6), (b) (7) protected and unprotected statements, and that the Employer discharged solely (b) (6), (b) ( for unprotected statements. Therefore, the Employer did not violate Section 8(a)(1) of the Act.

The Board has acknowledged that it has a duty to balance an employee’s statutorily-protected rights against an employer’s legitimate right to enforce its workplace rules and managerial prerogatives.3 An employer’s good-faith efforts to enforce its lawful anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies must be afforded

2 The Employer has a legitimate, lawful policy prohibiting race and sex discrimination and harassment in its workplace.

3 Brunswick Food and Drug, 284 NLRB 663, 664 (1987), enforced mem., 859 F.2d 927 (11th Cir. 1988). Case 32-CA-205351 - 4 - particular deference in light of the employer’s duty to comply with state and federal EEO laws.4 Additionally, employers have a strong interest in promoting diversity and encouraging employees across diverse demographic groups to thrive in their workplaces. In furtherance of these legitimate interests, employers must be permitted to “nip in the bud” the kinds of employee conduct that could lead to a “hostile workplace,” rather than waiting until an actionable hostile workplace has been created before taking action.

Where an employee’s conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions. For example, in Avondale Industries, the Board held that the employer lawfully discharged a union activist for insubordination based on her unfounded assertion that her foreman was a Klansman; the employer was justifiably concerned about the disruption her remark would cause in the workplace among her fellow African-American employees.5 In Advertiser Mfg. Co., the employer lawfully disciplined a shop steward who had made debasing and sexually abusive remarks to a female employee who had crossed a picket line months earlier.6 And, in Honda of America Mfg., the employer lawfully disciplined an employee for distributing a newsletter in which he directed one named employee to “come out of the closet” and used the phrase “bone us” to critique the employer’s bonus program.7 The Board concluded that such language was unprotected because of its highly offensive nature and quoted approvingly an earlier decision:

In view of the controversial nature of the language used and its admitted susceptibility to derisive and profane construction, [the employer] could legitimately ban the use of the provocative [language] as a reasonable precaution

4 Cf. Southern S.S. Co. v. NLRB, 316 U.S. 31, 47 (1942) (noting that “the Board has not been commissioned to effectuate the policies of the Labor Relations Act so single- mindedly that it may wholly ignore other and equally important Congressional objectives. Frequently the entire scope of Congressional purpose calls for careful accommodation of one statutory scheme to another, and it is not too much to demand of an administrative body that it undertake this accommodation without excessive emphasis upon its immediate task.”). 5 333 NLRB 622, 637–38 (2001). 6 275 NLRB 100, 133 (1985). 7 334 NLRB 746, 747 (2001).

Case 32-CA-205351 - 5 - against discord and bitterness between employees and management, as well as to assure decorum and discipline in the plant.8

The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct (b) (6), (b) (7 the Board found unprotected in these cases. statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, (b) (6), (b) (7 (b) (6), (b) ( notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and (b) (6), (b) ( analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace. Indeed, the memorandum did cause extreme discord, which the Charging Party exacerbated by deliberately expanding its audience. Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against women, deeply offensive, and made them feel unsafe at work. Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace. Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Party’s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.

The Employer demonstrated that the Charging Party was discharged only (b) (6), (b) because of unprotected discriminatory statements and not for expressing a dissenting view on matters affecting working conditions or offering critical feedback of its policies and programs, which were likely protected. The Employer carefully tailored the message it used in discharging the Charging Party, as well as its follow- up message to all employees, to affirm their right to engage in protected speech while prohibiting discrimination or harassment. In fact, the Employer disciplined another

8 Id. at 749 (quoting Southwestern Bell, 200 NLRB 667, 670 (1972)). See also Veterans Administration, 26 FLRA 114, 116 (1987) (finding racial stereotyping unprotected and upholding employer’s discipline of union president for calling a manager the “spook who sat by the door” and an “Uncle Tom” in union newsletter advocating his removal), aff’d sub nom. AFGE v. FLRA, 878 F.2d 460 (D.C. Cir. 1989); Detroit Medical Center, Case 07-CA-06682, Advice Memorandum dated Jan 10, 2012 (white employee at majority-black facility who, after having been demoted due to coworker complaints, made Facebook post about “jealous ass ghetto people that I work with” and complained that the union was protecting “generations of bad lazy piece of shit workers,” was not engaged in protected activity; while the employee’s complaints implicated Section 7 concerns, his use of racial stereotypes and slurs were opprobrious and led to a serious disruption at work and to an increase in racial tensions). Case 32-CA-205351 - 6 - employee for sending the Charging Party a threatening email in response to the views (b) (6), (b) (b) (6), (b) ( expressed in memo. Because the Employer discharged the Charging Party only for (b) (6), (b) ( unprotected conduct while it explicitly affirmed(b) (6), (b) (7 right to engage in protected (b) (6), (b) ( conduct, discharge did not violate the Act.

Accordingly, the Region should dismiss this charge, absent withdrawal.

/s/ J.L.S.

(b) (6), (b) ( ADV.32-CA-205351.Response.Google

1 Plaintiff Tim Chevalier complains and alleges as follows: 2 INTRODUCTION 3 1. Plaintiff Tim Chevalier is an accomplished software developer and computer 4 scientist who joined Defendant Google, Inc. as a Site Reliability Engineer in December 2015. 5 Throughout his life, Chevalier has engaged in political activism, advocating for civil rights for 6 transgender people, women, disabled people, and racial and sexual minorities. When he became 1 7 a Googler, he continued to engage in political activism, by participating in protests, signing 8 petitions, and engaging in political discourse with his coworkers. 9 2. At the time Google employed Chevalier, its technical workforce and leadership 10 were overwhelmingly white, abled, straight, cisgender, and male, and its workplace culture

LLP

reflected their views. In contrast to most Googlers, Chevalier identifies as disabled, queer, and

11 12 transgender. Chevalier soon recognized that Google’s workplace structure and culture were www.rezlaw.com

| discriminatory toward minorities. In particular, Google’s internal social networking platforms

13 14 were widely used to belittle and harass women, people of color, LGBTQ employees, and other 434-0513

underrepresented groups. Chevalier pushed back on the online bullying he and others were

415) 15 (

FX

| 16 experiencing, using the same internal messaging systems to try to educate his employer and

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 coworkers on how to change Google’s working conditions to be inclusive and supportive of 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 underrepresented minorities, such as himself. (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 3. Chevalier’s supervisors were critical of Chevalier’s political participation and 20 dismissive of his attempts to change Google’s culture. Ultimately, Google fired Chevalier. 21 Human Resources explicitly told Chevalier that Google was ending his employment because of 22 his political statements in opposition to the discrimination, harassment, and white supremacy he 23 saw being expressed on Google’s internal messaging systems. 24 /// 25 /// 26 ///

27 1 “Googler” is a term used by Google to refer to its employees. 28

1 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 PARTIES

2 4. Plaintiff is a resident of the County of Alameda in the State of California. He was 3 a Google employee from December 2015 through November 2017, and worked at Google’s San 4 Francisco Office.

5 5. Defendant Google, Inc. is a corporation, incorporated under the laws of Delaware. 6 At all times relevant to the complaint, Google had an office and was doing business in the City 7 and County of San Francisco.

8 6. The true names and capacities of Defendants named herein as Does 1 through 20, 9 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise are unknown to Plaintiff, who 10 therefore sues said Defendants by fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure

LLP

11 § 474. Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to show such true names and capacities of Does 1 12 through 20, inclusive, when they have been determined. www.rezlaw.com

|

13 7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants 14 was, at all times herein mentioned, an agent and/or representative of the remaining Defendants 434-0513

415) 15 and was acting within the course and scope of such relationship and/or was a joint employer of (

FX

| 16 Plaintiff along with the remaining Defendants. Plaintiff is further informed and believes that

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 each of the Defendants herein consented to, ratified, and authorized the acts alleged herein to 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 each of the remaining Defendants. (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

20 8. Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to California Code of Civil 21 Procedure § 395.5 and California Government Code § 12965. Defendants reside in and/or 22 transact business in the City and County of San Francisco, and are within the jurisdiction of this 23 Court for purposes of service of process. For purposes of Section 395.5, liability arises where the 24 injury occurs. The obligations and liability complained of herein arose in the City and County of 25 San Francisco; and Plaintiff suffered injury in the City and County of San Francisco.

26 9. Moreover, under Section 12965, an action may be brought in any county “in 27 which the unlawful practice is alleged to have been committed” or “in the county in which [the 28

2 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 Plaintiff] would have worked.” The unlawful practices were committed in San Francisco, where 2 Plaintiff was employed and suffered injury. 3 PROCEDURAL ALLEGATIONS

4 10. On February 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Department of Fair 5 Employment & Housing against Google for discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful 6 termination. Plaintiff obtained a Right-to-Sue notice the same day. 7 FACTS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

8 11. Plaintiff Tim Chevalier is an accomplished software developer and computer 9 scientist. Chevalier has a Bachelor of Science from Wellesley College in Computer Science and 10 Mathematics, and has a Masters in Computer Science from Berkeley. He completed significant

LLP

11 work toward a Doctorate in Computer Science at Portland State University. He also has 12 extensive work experience at Mozilla, AlephCloud Systems, Inc., and Heroku. www.rezlaw.com

|

13 12. Chevalier joined Google as a Site Reliability Engineer in December 2015. 14 13. Chevalier chose to work at Google because it professed to be an inclusive 434-0513

415) 15 workplace. Google advertises itself to prospective candidates as a company that “celebrates” (

FX

| 16 difference. Chevalier was optimistic that he could build his career at Google.

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 14. In 2015—the year Google hired Chevalier—Google had a homogeneous 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 workforce, overwhelmingly composed of white, cisgender men. Specifically, the technical (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 workforce was 82% men, and its ethnic breakdown was 59% White, 35% Asian, and 6% Black, 20 Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, or multi-racial. Similarly, its leadership was 21 composed of over 78% men, and its ethnic breakdown was 72% White, 23% Asian, and 5% 22 Black, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, or multi-racial. Google’s culture and 23 working conditions reflected the needs, beliefs, and politics of the majority of its workforce— 24 white, cisgender men.

25 15. Multiple facets of Chevalier’s identity did not conform to the typical Google 26 employee. Chevalier is a transgender, queer man. His sex was identified as female at birth, and 27 he transitioned in 2007. Chevalier is also disabled by complex post-traumatic stress disorder and 28

3 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 circadian rhythm sleep disorder. Throughout Chevalier’s life, he has experienced harassment and 2 discrimination in work, academic, and public settings.

3 16. Chevalier openly identified himself as transgender, disabled, and queer in his 4 communications with his coworkers and supervisors. 5 Google Encourages Its Employees to Communicate Through Multiple Internal Social 6 Networking Platforms

7 17. Google encourages its employees to communicate through email and Google’s 8 internal networking messaging systems Dory, Google+, and Memegen.

9 18. TGIF is a weekly all-hands meeting. At this meeting, anyone in Mountain View 10 can ask a question of Google’s executives. People in remote offices can submit questions via

LLP

11 Dory, a tool that allows people to ask questions electronically. Googlers can vote these questions 12 up or down to increase or decrease the chances that they will be asked. Other Googlers can www.rezlaw.com

|

13 comment on the questions and each other’s comments. These comments are called Dory threads. 14 Attendance at the TGIF meeting is strongly encouraged. 434-0513

415) 15 19. Google also encourages employees to post information in a blog format on (

FX

| 16 Google+. If a Google employee were to stop reading and posting on Google+, they would be

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 disadvantaged professionally. Googlers are encouraged to use Google+ to network with their 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 colleagues. Networking is essential to Googlers’ career development. Google expects its (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 employees to move between teams throughout their careers. By periodically changing teams, 20 Googlers are able to develop their skills and seek new opportunities and promotions. If an 21 employee is unable to develop a network of contacts throughout the company, these opportunities 22 will not be available to them. Additionally, networking enables employees to facilitate cross- 23 team collaboration, which Google requires for promotion to its upper levels. Furthermore, 24 Googlers stay informed about business developments by reading internal Google+ posts.

25 20. Employees also use the Memegen tool to create memes—text superimposed on 26 images to create a humorous, ironic, or sarcastic result. Once these memes are posted, Googlers 27 may vote on the memes and the most popular entries rise to the top of the page. Googlers’ 28 routine use of Memegen includes satirizing Google, the internet, and society.

4 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 21. In or around 2016, there was an initiative amongst Googlers called 2 “Memegender,” which sought to increase representation of women in the images Google 3 provides for meme templates and in among meme authors. At TGIF meetings, executives spoke 4 favorably of employee participation in Memegen.

5 22. All Googlers may see posts on Dory, the internal Google+, and Memegen; 6 however, they are not viewable to people outside of Google’s intranet. 7 Chevalier Objected to Discriminatory Comments and Harassment

8 23. Throughout Chevalier’s employment, Googlers frequently posted discriminatory 9 and harassing comments on internal social forums. Google cultivated such harassment by 10 providing multiple platforms for employee communication that allowed employees to casually

LLP

11 comment on their coworkers’ posts. These tools were often used to criticize underrepresented 12 minorities who shared perspectives not held by their overwhelmingly white, male, cisgender www.rezlaw.com

|

13 peers. Chevalier responded by calling out discrimination and harassment for what it was and 14 asking his peers to reflect on perspectives different from their own. 434-0513

415) 15 24. On Google’s social forums, Googlers openly questioned the engineering and (

FX

| 16 leadership competence of racial minorities and women. For example, in May 2016, one Googler

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 posted this question to Dory: “if we have fewer Black and Latin@ people here, doesn’t that mean 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 they’re not as good?” Other Googlers suggested that by encouraging the hiring of (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 underrepresented minorities, Google was lowering the qualifications to work at Google.

20 25. This ongoing debate became public when Googler James Damore wrote a memo, 21 in which he argued that Google’s efforts to increase diversity in tech were misguided in part 22 because of the biological differences between men and women. Specifically, he said 23 “[d]ifferences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we 24 don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.” Damore also argued that 25 politically conservative beliefs were marginalized at Google. External websites published this 26 memo and it went viral. As a result, Googlers’ internal debate about gender and race became a 27 significant part of the national political discourse about workplace discrimination. 28 ///

5 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 26. Google itself did not intervene to prevent discrimination and harassment of 2 minorities on its social forums. Instead, it allowed Googlers, for example, to call their coworkers 3 immoral because of their sexual orientation and to question their qualifications because of their 4 gender, sex, and race. In the absence of a response from Google, Google’s minority employees 5 defended themselves by responding to these comments and supporting each other through emails 6 and posts on Dory, Google+, and Memegen.

7 27. Throughout Chevalier’s employment, he regularly opposed discriminatory 8 arguments that women and minorities were less competent at jobs in tech and leadership roles 9 than cisgender, white men. For example, in a Google+ post in September 2016, Chevalier 10 explained, “In a culture where it’s common to respond to diversity initiatives with ‘we can’t

LLP

11 lower the bar’, implying a baseline assumption that women, non-binary people, and men of color 12 are incompetent, it’s equally important that we don’t do the reverse: that we don’t insist on white www.rezlaw.com

|

13 male competence even in the face of clear evidence to the contrary.”

14 28. Similarly, Googlers questioned the acceptance of LGBTQ people. Chevalier 434-0513

415) 15 opposed such statements and explained why sexual minorities, like himself, found such (

FX

| 16 statements harmful and harassing. For example, in June 2016, Chevalier responded to a Dory

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 thread, in which a colleague called homosexuality “immoral” by noting that such comments 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 create a permission structure for violence and discrimination. He noted that this comment was (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 made weeks after a mass shooting, which targeted gay men, at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. 20 Chevalier explained that these comments negatively affected the working conditions at Google: 21 “[i]t shows that we still have a lot of work to do when it comes to making Google a place where 22 people are included based on their willingness to cooperate with each other, rather than on 23 arbitrary personal characteristics.”

24 29. Chevalier also advised his colleagues on how to protect themselves from internet 25 harassment at the hands of other Googlers. For example, in December 2016, he wrote a Google+ 26 post warning that Googlers were leaking intra-Google communications to alt-right and white 27 supremacist websites and providing resources on preventing online harassment. 28 ///

6 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 30. Chevalier also reported his colleagues’ discriminatory comments and harassing 2 conduct to Human Resources. For example, in June of 2016, Chevalier reported to Human 3 Resources that fellow Googler Manual Amador posted a link on Dory to a website hosting an 4 online harassment campaign that targeted Chevalier for being transgender.

5 31. Additionally, Chevalier objected to linguistic techniques frequently used to silence 6 speakers with minority viewpoints.

7 32. When subject to discriminatory comments and harassment, Chevalier reported the 8 conduct to Human Resources and Google’s management. On information and belief, Google did 9 not take any steps to intervene and prevent further discriminatory comments and harassment. 10 Chevalier Identified Structural Discrimination at Google

LLP

11 33. Because Chevalier is a member of multiple minority groups that were 12 underrepresented in Google’s workforce, he recognized that its policies discriminated against him www.rezlaw.com

|

13 and other minorities. Because Google’s policies disadvantaged him, he needed to advocate for 14 changes to enable him to be effective in his job. In a Google+ post, he explained why this form 434-0513

415) 15 of political advocacy was necessary: (

FX

| 16 I don’t advocate for diversity and inclusion because it’s fun or because I would rather do that than think about distributed systems. 100% of the time I spend on defending my 351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 434-9800

right to be here and the rights of women, people in gender and sexual minorities, people SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 of color, and disabled people to be here is time I would rather spend thinking about hard (415) intellectual problems in engineering or science. Nevertheless, I do it because if I didn’t, I PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 would be spending no time on engineering, because I would be quitting the tech industry to work as a copyeditor. 20 21 34. For example, Chevalier explained to his supervisors that Google’s culture of “ask 22 for forgiveness, not for permission” disadvantages people with PTSD (a group that is 23 disproportionately likely to contain people in underrepresented groups), like himself. 24 35. Through Chevalier’s Google+ posts, he explained to his colleagues that many 25 minorities feel excluded by their colleagues in tech jobs:

26 In tech, being different is a career liability. Being a good engineer depends largely on tacit knowledge acquisition, which is a fancy way to say the stuff that people tell you at 27 coffee breaks that isn’t formally documented anywhere. In other words, it depends on 28 people liking you and wanting to talk to you. The more ways in which you’re different, the harder it is to form the kinds of social bonds that are essential for learning things that 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

aren't written down anywhere, and thus, the harder it is to do your job. Moreover, 1 persisting in the face of this social exclusion is a second full-time job, even though those 2 of us who are different in various ways have the same number of hours in the week to play around with as do people who fit in more. 3 4 36. Chevalier also advocated on Google+ for policies that would allow minority 5 voices to be heard. For example, he opposed a proposed change to Dory that would have allowed 6 Googlers to post anonymously. He proposed a countervailing policy to counteract what he 7 perceived to be the silencing of minority voices:

8 The premise of the question is that valuable questions could be asked which are currently not being asked because of anonymity. In my experience and that of many others, any 9 questions that acknowledge Google has problems with diversity or empathy or that 10 suggest we should resist repressive political regimes get downvoted into oblivion. Before

removing the requirement to be accountable for your words, why not try weighting LLP

11 downvotes much less highly and doing an experiment to see what the result on the question ranking is? 12 www.rezlaw.com

| 13 37. He also advocated on Google+ for less emphasis to be placed on past job 14 performance during the hiring process because doing so disadvantages persons who have been 434-0513

415) 15 the victims of past workplace discrimination: (

FX

| 16 This is why interview processes that are heavily based on past job experience reproduce bias even if the people who implement those processes are unbiased: people’s past job 351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN experience reflects their experience being treated with and without bias. We like to think 18 about individual success and ‘cognitive ability’, but the difficult truth is that a person’s (415) track record tends to have more to do with their environment than their raw cognitive PH RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 power (whatever that is). I’m glad Google spends more time assessing problem-solving ability directly than studying a person's past record, in general, but that doesn't mean we 20 can’t improve.

21 22 Google Retaliated Against Chevalier 23 38. In August 2016, Peter Dahl became the acting manager of Chevalier’s team, the 24 App Engine Storage SRE team. 25 39. On September 7, Dahl and Chevalier had their first one on one meeting. During 26 this meeting, Dahl criticized Chevalier for engaging in too much “social activism.” 27 40. The Google Recognition Team encouraged employees to give fellow employees 28 “peer bonuses.” Any employee can recommend that another employee receive a peer bonus. The

8 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 recipient’s manager must then review the recommendation and approve or deny the bonus. If the 2 manager approves the peer bonus, then the recipient receives a token amount of money and a 3 certificate that others can view. Chevalier had received nine peer bonuses for “social activism.” 4 Dahl brought up these bonuses and cautioned, “That wasn’t what we hired you for.”

5 41. On September 14, Dahl met with Chevalier and commented again on Chevalier’s 6 “social activism.” He implied that, at Google, one has to earn the right to be politically engaged, 7 by saying, “it’s okay, but you have to be a good engineer.”

8 42. Dahl’s comments revealed that he falsely assumed that “good engineers” do not 9 advocate for diversity and that “good engineers” do not have a personal stake in inclusion and 10 diversity because they are cisgender, heterosexual, abled, white men.

LLP

11 43. On December 8, Dahl gave a presentation to Chevalier’s team about preparing for 12 performance reviews. He commented, “If you spend 50% of your time on community work, www.rezlaw.com

|

13 that’s a problem.” Chevalier believed that Dahl directed this comment at him.

14 44. In February 2017, Vasilios Hoffman became the manager of Chevalier’s team. 434-0513

415) 15 45. In March 2017, Dahl emailed Chevalier to critique his “etiquette” and “tone” on (

FX

| 16 Dory and Google+. Dahl focused on Dory threads in which Chevalier explained that people

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 sometimes label others’ arguments as “groupthink” to dismiss their arguments and avoid 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 engaging in a debate. Similarly, Chevalier explained that people assert that their arguments are (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 superior by describing themselves as the voice of reason. Chevalier’s posts explained that people 20 in the majority often deploy these linguistic tactics against minorities to silence them and 21 discount their views. Chevalier recognized that Dahl intended this warning to curtail his political 22 speech.

23 46. Chevalier reported to Human Resources that he was subject to discrimination 24 because of his gender and disabilities. The Human Resources representative responded that he 25 should consider leaving Google and that working at Google was not for everyone.

26 47. Chevalier submitted a request to transfer to a new team, but Google denied it. 27 48. In August, while Chevalier was on medical leave, Human Resources 28 representative Maria Insalaco emailed to request a meeting and explained, “concerns have been

9 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 raised about recent posts you’ve made on internal forums.” She also notified him that his access 2 to his work Google accounts would be frozen pending an investigation.

3 49. On September 22, 2017, Chevalier and Insalaco had a call to discuss an email he 4 sent a colleague, Memegens he posted, and Google+ posts. These posts applied politically liberal 5 views to the ongoing political debates between Googlers.

6 50. Insalaco criticized an email in which Chevalier addressed Damore’s memo, which 7 was dominating the national political discourse at the time. Specifically, he characterized 8 Damore’s memo as saying that people who are biologically female are “biologically unsuited” to 9 technical jobs, and described this view as “misogynistic.” He also responded to the claim that 10 Google marginalized conservative political beliefs by drawing a distinction between the

LLP

11 experience of a female who is called biologically inferior and the experience of a conservative 12 who is criticized for calling females biologically inferior. www.rezlaw.com

|

13 51. In this email, Chevalier linked to a blog post in which he claimed that society 14 teaches “white boys” to expect privilege and to feel threatened when they do not receive it. 434-0513

415) 15 Insalaco objected that the term “white boys” could be perceived as a generalization about race (

FX

| 16 and gender. Chevalier explained that general terms are necessary to talk about structural

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 misogyny and racism. He also values them as a rhetorical device to convey his point succinctly. 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 Without these terms, he would have to weaken his claims by qualifying every statement about a (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 class of people with a statement like, “some (but not all) white men.”

20 52. The Memegens Chevalier posted were satirical commentary on active political 21 debates within Google. One of Chevalier’s memes, responded to a meme that trivialized and 22 dismissed a Black employee’s concerns about experiencing racism at work, which Chevalier 23 believed created a hostile work environment.

24 53. Another satirized the popular understanding that Trump won the 2016 presidential 25 election because white men felt disenfranchised during Obama’s presidency. This directly 26 responded to memes posted by other Googlers that centered on conservatives’ feelings about the 27 2016 election. Chevalier’s post was intended to convey that minority groups’ expression of fear 28 in response to the election is not a form of discrimination against conservatives.

10 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 54. Insalaco also objected to a Google+ post in which Chevalier criticized 2 Republicans for “affiliating [themselves] with people carrying torches and yelling, ‘you will not 3 replace us’” at the rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

4 55. Finally, Insalaco criticized a post Chevalier made in response to a Dory question, 5 which asked Google’s executives to make a public statement saying, “conservatives and 6 Republicans are welcome” at Google. Chevalier responded that if Republicans “don’t feel 7 comfortable with Google policies, [they are] welcome to leave.” He explained that he meant that 8 being Republican did not exempt them from following Google’s code of conduct and working 9 towards its stated mission

10 56. On information and belief, Human Resources investigated Chevalier’s posts

LLP

11 because the harassing bullies to whom his posts responded reported him to Human Resources.

12 57. Through Chevalier’s conversations with his manager and Human Resources, he www.rezlaw.com

|

13 learned that Google defines appropriate workplace speech by the standard of what someone with 14 a cisgender, heterosexual, white, male, upper-middle-class background would say. In truth, 434-0513

415) 15 Google’s promise to allow its employees to freely speak their minds only applies to people who (

FX

| 16 represent the majority viewpoint and use the majority’s rhetoric.

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 58. Approximately six weeks after Insalaco and Chevalier’s call, Google notified 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 Chevalier that it was terminating his employment because of the political posts that Insalaco (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 identified during their September 22, 2017 call. 20 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 21 (Retaliation In Violation of Lab. Code, § 1101) 22 59. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 58 of this 23 Complaint as if fully set forth herein, and for a cause of action alleges as follows: 24 60. Labor Code section 1101 prohibits employers from making, adopting, or enforcing 25 any rule, regulation, or policy that forbids or prevents employees from engaging or participating 26 in politics, or controls or directs, or tending to control or direct the political activities or 27 affiliations of employees. 28 ///

11 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 61. Upon an employer’s violation of section 1101, the employee has a private right of 2 action for damages for injuries caused by the employer’s violation. (Lab. Code, § 1105; 3 Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481, 486.)

4 62. Chevalier engaged in protected political activity, including engaging in protests, 5 organizing events, circulating and signing petitions, and actively engaging in political discussions 6 on Dory threads, Google+, and Memegen. Through these actions, Chevalier promoted the civil 7 rights of minorities working at Google and opposed the politics of the Trump Administration.

8 63. Chevalier’s supervisors discouraged Chevalier from organizing and participating 9 in events like Transconf, a business conference for transgender Googlers, saying he was spending 10 too much time on political activities. Further, his supervisors and Human Resource

LLP

11 representatives discouraged him from engaging in political speech on Google’s social forums. 12 And Google ultimately terminated Chevalier’s employment because of his specific political www.rezlaw.com

|

13 statements he made on Google’s social forums.

14 64. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, 434-0513

415) 15 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment (

FX

| 16 benefits and has incurred other economic losses.

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 65. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

20 66. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and 21 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive 22 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled 23 to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. 24 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (Retaliation In Violation of Lab. Code, § 1102) 26 67. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 66 of this 27 Complaint as if fully set forth herein, and for a cause of action alleges as follows: 28 ///

12 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 68. Labor Code section 1102 prohibits employers from using the of threat of discharge 2 or loss of employment to coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence its employees to 3 adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political 4 action or political activity.

5 69. Upon an employer’s violation of section 1102, the employee has a private right of 6 action for damages for injuries caused by the employer’s violation. (Lab. Code, § 1105; 7 Lockheed Aircraft Corp. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County (1946) 28 Cal.2d 481, 486.)

8 70. Chevalier engaged in protected political activity, including engaging in protests, 9 organizing events, circulating and signing petitions, and actively engaging in political discussions 10 on Dory threads, Google+, and Memegen. Through these actions, Chevalier promoted the civil

LLP

11 rights of minorities at Google and opposed the politics of the Trump Administration.

12 71. Chevalier’s supervisors discouraged Chevalier from organizing and participating www.rezlaw.com

|

13 in events like Transconf saying he was spending too much time on political activities. Further, 14 his supervisors and Human Resource representatives discouraged him from engaging in political 434-0513

415) 15 speech on Google’s social forums. And Google ultimately terminated Chevalier’s employment (

FX

| 16 because of his specific political statements he made on Google’s social forums.

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 72. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 benefits and has incurred other economic losses.

20 73. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, 21 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s 22 damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

23 74. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and 24 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive 25 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled 26 to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. 27 /// 28 ///

13 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Retaliation in Violation of FEHA, Gov. Code, § 12940(h))

3 75. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 74 of this 4 Complaint as if fully set forth herein, and for a cause of action alleges as follows:

5 76. As stated above, Defendant is subject to the Fair Employment and Housing Act 6 (FEHA) because it regularly employs five or more persons. Government Code section 12940(h) 7 makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against any person 8 because the person has opposed any practices forbidden under the FEHA.

9 77. As described herein, Chevalier opposed and protested discriminatory comments 10 and harassment based on sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability, and race. In response,

LLP

11 Defendant, through its managing employees, terminated his employment.

12 78. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, www.rezlaw.com

|

13 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment 14 benefits and has incurred other economic losses. 434-0513

415) 15 79. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, (

FX

| 16 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial. 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 80. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive 20 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled 21 to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. 22 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

23 (Hostile Work Environment in Violation of Gov. Code, § 12940(j)(1))

24 81. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 80 of this 25 Complaint as if fully set forth herein, and for a cause of action alleges as follows:

26 82. At all times mentioned, Defendant was subject to FEHA. Government Code 27 section 12940(j)(1) makes the harassment of an employee because of their sex, gender, gender 28 identity, gender expression, or sexual orientation unlawful if the entity, or its agents or

14 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 supervisors, knew or should have known of this conduct and failed to take immediate and 2 appropriate corrective action.

3 83. Chevalier was the target of harassment. Googlers attacked him for expressing his 4 identity and viewpoint as a transgender man, and one Googler posted a link to Dory of a website 5 containing an online harassment campaign targeting Chevalier because he is transgender. 6 Googlers also expressed views that Chevalier’s sexual orientation is “immoral” and that people 7 of the sex Chevalier was assigned at birth (female) are intellectually inferior.

8 84. Google facilitated this conduct by providing Dory, Google+, and Memegen as 9 platforms throughout which harassing commentary was pervasive.

10 85. A reasonable person would have recognized the environment created by Google to

LLP

11 be hostile and abusive.

12 86. The hostile environment created by Google’s conduct was so severe and pervasive www.rezlaw.com

|

13 that it altered Chevalier’s working conditions.

14 87. Chevalier reported this harassment to Google through his superiors and the 434-0513

415) 15 Human Resources Department and made clear that the harassing comments were unwelcome. (

FX

| 16 88. After Chevalier reported this harassment to Google, he continued to experience

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 harassment. 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 89. On information and belief, Google failed to take corrective action. (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 90. Google’s conduct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff harm. 20 91. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, 21 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment 22 benefits and has incurred other economic losses.

23 92. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, 24 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s 25 damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

26 93. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and 27 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive 28 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights to be free from

15 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 discrimination. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an 2 amount according to proof. 3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (Failure to Take All Reasonable Steps to Prevent Discrimination and Harassment from 5 Occurring in Violation of Gov. Code, § 12940(k))

6 94. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 93 of this 7 Complaint as if fully set forth herein, and for a cause of action alleges as follows:

8 95. At all times mentioned, Defendant was subject to FEHA. Plaintiff was a member 9 of a group protected by that statute, in particular Government Code section 12940(k), prohibiting 10 failure to take all steps to prevent discrimination and harassment from occurring.

LLP

11 96. On information and belief, Google failed to conduct any meaningful investigation 12 into Plaintiffs’ complaints of coworkers’ discrimination and harassment against women and www.rezlaw.com

|

13 sexual and racial minorities and failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent discrimination and 14 harassment from occurring in violation of Government Code section 12940(k). 434-0513

415) 15 97. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, (

FX

| 16 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 benefits and has incurred other economic losses. 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 98. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s actions, (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s 20 damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial.

21 99. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and 22 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive 23 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights to be free from 24 discrimination. Plaintiff is thus entitled to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an 25 amount according to proof. 26 /// 27 /// 28 ///

16 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Retaliation In Violation of Lab. Code, § 1102.5)

3 100. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 99 of this 4 Complaint as if fully set forth herein, and for a cause of action alleges as follows:

5 101. Labor Code section 1102.5 prohibits retaliation against an employee for disclosing 6 information to a person with authority over the employee or who has authority to investigate, 7 discover, or correct the issue, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the 8 information discloses a violation of a state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance 9 with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation. Labor Code section 1102.5 further prohibits 10 retaliation against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in such a

LLP

11 violation.

12 102. On numerous occasions, as detailed above, Chevalier objected to discriminatory www.rezlaw.com

|

13 and harassing conduct directed at women, sexual and racial minorities, and himself.

14 103. He told his supervisors, members of Google’s management team, and Google’s 434-0513

415) 15 Human Resources department that he regularly objected to the discriminatory and harassing (

FX

| 16 conduct of his fellow Googlers through Dory threads, Google+, and Memegen.

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 104. Chevalier was retaliated against and wrongfully discharged on account of the 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 disclosures he made and concerns he raised. (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 105. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, 20 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer losses in earnings, equity and other employment 21 benefits and has incurred other economic losses.

22 106. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, 23 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment, all to Plaintiff’s 24 damage in an amount to be proven at trial.

25 107. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently and 26 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive 27 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled 28 to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof.

17 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public Policy)

3 108. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 107 of this 4 Complaint as if fully set forth herein, and for a cause of action alleges as follows:

5 109. It is, and at all times relevant to this action has been, the law and fundamental 6 public policy of the state of California that an employer may not retaliate against an employee for 7 raising, opposing, or refusing to participate in conduct or activities that he reasonably believes to 8 be a violation of state or federal laws or regulations. This public policy is embodied in statutes 9 including, but not limited to Labor Code sections 1101, 1102, 1102.5 and Government Code 10 section 12940.

LLP

11 110. In terminating Plaintiff’s employment, Defendant violated the fundamental, 12 substantial, and well-established public policies embodied in these statutes. www.rezlaw.com

|

13 111. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s unlawful actions, 14 Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer substantial losses in earnings and other employment 434-0513

415) 15 benefits and has incurred other economic losses. (

FX

| 16 112. As a further direct, foreseeable and proximate result of Defendant’s actions,

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 Plaintiff has suffered emotional distress, humiliation, shame and embarrassment all to Plaintiff’s 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 damage in an amount to be proven at time of trial. (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 113. Defendant committed the acts herein despicably, maliciously, fraudulently, and 20 oppressively, with the wrongful intention of injuring Plaintiff, from an improper and evil motive 21 amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of the rights of Plaintiff. Plaintiff is thus entitled 22 to recover punitive damages from Defendant in an amount according to proof. 23 PRAYER FOR RELIEF

24 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:

25 1. For compensatory damages, including but not limited to, lost back pay (including, 26 but not limited to, salary and bonus wages), equity, and fringe benefits and future 27 lost earnings, equity, and fringe benefits, emotional distress; with legal interest, 28 according to proof as allowed by law;

18 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

1 2. For injunctive relief, including reinstatement and a prohibition on further 2 discrimination or retaliation;

3 3. For punitive damages as allowed by law; 4 4. For an award to Plaintiff of costs of suit incurred herein and reasonable attorney’s 5 fees, including those available under FEHA, Labor Code section 1102.5, and Code 6 of Civil Procedure section 1021.5;

7 5. For prejudgment interest and post-judgment interest as allowed by law; and, 8 6. For an award of such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 9 10 DATED: February 21, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

LLP

RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP

11 12

www.rezlaw.com

|

13 By: 14 DAVID A. LOWE 434-0513 Attorneys for Plaintiff

415) 15 (

FX

| 16

351 CALIFORNIA STREET, SUITE 700 17 434-9800

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104 94104 CALIFORNIA FRANCISCO, SAN 18 (415)

PH

RUDY EXELROD ZIEFF & LOWE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

19 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber How bias clouds our thinking about diversity and inclusion go/pc-considered-harmful James Damore - damore@ July 2017 Feel free to comment (they aren’t disabled, the doc may just be overloaded). For longer form discussions see g/pc-harmful-discuss ​

Reply to public response and misrepresentation 1 TL;DR 2 Background 2 Google’s biases 2 Possible non bias causes of the gender gap in tech 3 Personality differences 4 Men’s higher drive for status 5 Non discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap 5 The harm of Google’s biases 6 Why we’re blind 7 Suggestions 8

Reply to public response and misrepresentation I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can't have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I've gotten many†personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL;DR ● Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety. ​ ​ ● This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed. ● The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. ○ Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression ○ Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression ● Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. ● Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background1 ​ People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document2. Google has several biases and honest ​ ​ discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices: ​

______

1 ​This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

2 ​Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I'd be very happy ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching ​ extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech3 ​ At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because: ● They’re universal across human cultures ● They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone ● Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males ● The underlying traits are highly heritable ● They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions. ______

3 ​ Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

Personality differences Women, on average, have more: ​

● Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also ​ ​ interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing). ​ ​ ○ These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even ​ within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics. ● Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness. ○ This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support. ● Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance). ​ ​ ​ ○ This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that "greater ​ ​ ​ nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits." Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality traits becomes wider.” We need to stop ​ assuming that gender gaps imply sexism. ​

Men’s higher drive for status We always ask why we don't see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on4, pushing many men into these higher ​ ​ paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of ​ work-related deaths. ​

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap Below I'll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women's representation in tech without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it's still instructive to list them: ● Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things ○ We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles at Google can be and we shouldn't deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this). ● Women on average are more cooperative ○ Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there's more we can do. ○ This doesn't mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn't necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what's been done in ​ education. ​ ● Women on average are more prone to anxiety ______

4 For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. ​ ​ ​ Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal. ​ ​ ​ ○ Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits. ● Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for ​ ​ status on average ○ Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in ​ ​ ​ tech. ● The male gender role is currently inflexible ○ Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more "feminine," then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally "feminine" roles.

Philosophically, I don't think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principled reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google's diversity being a component of that. For example, currently those willing to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google's funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The harm of Google’s biases I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

● Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race5 ​ ● A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates ● Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by ​ ​ ​ decreasing the false negative rate ● Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias) ● Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal

discrimination6 ​ ______5 Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race. 6 Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs. These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is ​ both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology7 that can irreparably harm Google. ​ ​

Why we’re blind We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change), the Left tends to deny science ​ concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ8 and sex differences). Thankfully, ​ ​ climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social sciences lean left (about 95%), which creates ​ ​ enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social ​ constructionism and the gender wage gap9. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and ​ ​ uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and agreeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and a whiner10. Nearly every difference between men and women is ​ ​ ​ interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is being spent to water only one side of the lawn.

______7 Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.” 8 Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of aristocracy. 9 Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the ​ ​ same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employee sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power. 10 “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.” This same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness11, which constrains ​ ​ discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and ​ ​ ​ shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftist protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silent, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions I hope it’s clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender ​ roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism). My concrete suggestions are to: ● De-moralize diversity. ○ As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of ​ ​ costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.” ● Stop alienating conservatives. ​ ​ ○ Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. ○ In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those ​ ​ with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. ○ Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required ​ ​ for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company. ● Confront Google’s biases. ○ I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. ○ I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture. ● Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races. ○ These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined. ______11 Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or ​ ​ insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

● Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs. ○ Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts. ○ There’s currently very little transparency into the extent of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber. ○ These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives. ○ I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination. ● Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity. ○ We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination. ○ We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity. ○ Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX. ● De-emphasize empathy. ○ I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and ​ dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about ​ the facts. ● Prioritize intention. ○ Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offence and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions. ○ Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with ​ violence and isn’t backed by evidence. ​ ​ ​ ​ ● Be open about the science of human nature. ○ Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems. ● Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees. ○ We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory. ○ Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown. ○ Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. ​ ​ ​ Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the ​ ​ ​ training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training). 2/23/2018 Ellen Pao Loses Gender Bias Suit Against Kleiner Perkins | The Recorder

(/therecorder/) Menu Sign POWERED BY LAW.COM (/) promoCode=CA&source=https://www Search (/therecorder/search/) SUBSCRIB PROMOCODE=CA&SOURCE=HTTPS:

Publications (/publications) Law Topics (/topics) Cases (/therecorder/case-digests/) Business of Law (/therecorder/business-of-law/) In House Counsel (/therecorder/in house counsel/) Columns (/therecorder/columns/) Events (/therecorder/events/) More + (/therecorder/sitemap/)

Ellen Pao Loses Gender Bias Suit Against Kleiner Perkins

By Marisa Kendall | March 27, 2015 at 02:19 PM

     (http://www.almreprints.com)

Ellen Pao and legal team leaving court (Jason Doiy / The Recorder)

SAN FRANCISCO — Ellen Pao, whose court battle against venture- capital rm Kleiner Perkins Caueld & Byers drew focus to simmering gender problems in Silicon Valley, walked away with nothing Friday after a grueling monthlong trial.

A jury of six men and six women in San Francisco Superior Court determined that Pao’s gender wasn’t the main reason the Silicon Valley V.C. rm red her in October 2012, and failed to promote her before that. Nor did Kleiner take those actions as retaliation for her lodging complaints of gender bias internally, and then suing the rm in May 2012.

The verdict, reached after almost 20 hours of deliberation over three days, is a career high for Kleiner’s lead lawyer, Orrick, Herrington & Sutclie partner Lynne Hermle, who had to contend with evidence that painted Kleiner Perkins as an environment where men were praised for being outspoken, while women for punished for it.

https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202721932880/ 1/6 2/23/2018 Ellen Pao Loses Gender Bias Suit Against Kleiner Perkins | The Recorder

Hermle chipped away at the jurors’ sympathies for Pao by showing emails where she complained about fellow partners behind their backs. She systematically undermined Pao’s most attention-grabbing claims. And Hermle put several female Kleiner partners on the stand who testied they never saw gender discrimination at the rm.

Speaking to reporters outside the courtroom, Hermle said she always had condence in the strength of Kleiner Perkins’ case.

“It never occurred to me for a second that a careful and attentive jury like this would nd either discrimination or retaliation,” Hermle said, “and I’m glad to have been proven right about that.”

Juror Steve Sammut, who sided with Kleiner Perkins on all claims, told reporters Pao’s performance reviews played the largest role in their deliberations. Sammut, a 62-year-old San Francisco native, said the jurors compared her reviews with those of her peers, and found that while the issues raised in her colleagues’ reviews seemed to be resolved over time, Pao’s never were. Sammut also said Hermle’s cross-examination of Pao was tougher than it needed to be, but her style didn’t ultimately aect their verdict.

“There were times when her tone was out of line,” he said.

Pao’s suit described an entrenched boys’ club culture where women were excluded from deal-making dinners and kept o prime investment funds. The trial has obsessed Silicon Valley and become part of a larger discussion about opportunities for women in the male-dominated tech sector.

On Friday, the jury voted, 10-2, in favor of Kleiner Perkins on most claims, with one man and one woman siding with Pao. But the jury proved to be more divided on Pao’s assertion that Kleiner red her as retaliation for her internal complaints of discrimination and subsequent lawsuit.

That question threw the court into chaos Friday afternoon, after the jurors prematurely announced they had come to a consensus. When Presiding Judge Harold Kahn polled the jurors, one unexpectedly changed his vote to favor Pao, leaving Kleiner Perkins one juror shy of those needed to secure its win.

“Between that walk from the jury room to the courtroom, something changed,” another juror, Marshalette Ramsey, said of the ip-op. Ramsey, a BART operations manager, said she sided with Pao on all counts.

Kahn threw out the verdict and instructed the jury to return to deliberations. The false alarm rattled the throng of journalists and court watchers who had crowded into the courtroom in anticipation of a resolution to the trial that has captivated Silicon Valley. Several news outlets had already reported a total defense win Friday afternoon before Kahn announced the problem.

When the jury came back a second time after two hours of additional deliberation, the juror had changed his vote back in favor of Kleiner Perkins. https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202721932880/ 2/6 2/23/2018 Ellen Pao Loses Gender Bias Suit Against Kleiner Perkins | The Recorder

Speaking to reporters after the verdict was read, Pao expressed no regrets over bringing the suit to trial, even though it meant a public airing of her most unattering emails, and brutal attacks on her character in court.

(Click here (http://www.therecorder.com/home/id=1202721966486/Video-Ellen- Pao-Says-She-Has-No-Regrets?mcode=1202615731420) to watch a video of Pao’s statement.)

“I have told my story,” she said. “And thousands of people have heard it. If I’ve helped to level the playing eld for women and minorities in venture capital, then the battle was worth it.”

Pao, a former junior partner who is now interim CEO of Reddit, had claimed she was excluded from male-only business events at Kleiner Perkins, and subjected to sexually-charged conversations and unwanted advances from male partners.

She demanded compensation for wages lost as a result of her lack of promotion and her termination—a gure her lawyers, Alan Exelrod of Rudy, Exelrod, Zie & Lowe and Therese Lawless of Lawless & Lawless, pegged as high as $14.5 million. The jury could also have awarded punitive damages and upped Pao’s payout by tens of millions.

Ramsey said she responded positively to the passion in Lawless’ rebuttal argument during closings.

“It was obvious that it was very hard for her to contain,” Ramsey said.

Contact the reporter at [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]).

Reporter Patience Haggin contributed to this report.

 SHARE ON FACEBOOK  SHARE ON TWITTER

Need A Businesses Loans? Find The Best Businesses Loans on… Search Now | Sponsored Links

Going abroad? Get a credit card with No foreign transaction fee CardBenefit The Unsung Heroes of Shanghai SHINE.cn

https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202721932880/ 3/6 2/23/2018 Ellen Pao Loses Gender Bias Suit Against Kleiner Perkins | The Recorder

Trending Stories Meet The American 1 Lawyer's Young Lawyer Editorial Board (/americanlawyer/sites/americanlawyer/2018/02/23/meet- the-american-lawyers- editorial-board/)

THE AMERICAN LAWYER (/AMERICANLAWYER/)

Former Skadden 2 Associate Pleads Guilty in Mueller Probe (/nationallawjournal/sites/nationallawjournal/2018/02/20/former- skadden-associate- charged-in-mueller- probe/)

NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL (/NATIONALLAWJOURNAL/)

Latham & Watkins 3 Makes History with $3 Billion in Revenue (/americanlawyer/sites/americanlawyer/2018/02/22/latham- breaks-3-billion-barrier- after-another-banner- year/)

THE AMERICAN LAWYER (/AMERICANLAWYER/)

The Early Reports: Am 4 Law 100/200 2018 (/americanlawyer/sites/americanlawyer/2018/02/16/the- early-reports-am-law- 100200-2018/)

THE AMERICAN LAWYER (/AMERICANLAWYER/) https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202721932880/ 4/6 2/23/2018 Ellen Pao Loses Gender Bias Suit Against Kleiner Perkins | The Recorder

5 Sorry Clients: Higher Law Firm Billing Rates Really Do Pay O (/americanlawyer/sites/americanlawyer/2018/02/21/sorry- clients-higher-law-rm- billing-rates-really-do- pay-o/)

THE AMERICAN LAWYER (/AMERICANLAWYER/)

Featured Firms

Law Oces of Mark E. Salomone Gary Martin Hays & Associates P.C. Smith & Hassler

2 OLIVER ST #608 235 PEACHTREE ST NE #400 225 N LOOP W #525 BOSTON, MA 02109 ATLANTA, GA 30303 HOUSTON, TX 77008 857-444-6468www.marksalomone.com 800-898-4297www.garymartinhays.com (877) 777-1529www.smithandhassler.com

Presented by BigVoodoo 

More from ALM

CLE Center Legal Compass Events Webcasts LawJobs Professional Announcements

Premium Subscription Team Accounts Bundle Subscriptions

With this subscription you will receive unlimited Our Team Account subscription service are for Gain access to some of the most knowledgeab access to high quality, online, on-demand legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle premium content from well-respected faculty in attorney is granted unlimited access to high options! Our Compliance bundles are curated the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys quality, on-demand premium content from well- CLE Counselors and include current legal topic licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys respected faculty in the legal industry along with and challenges within the industry. Our second that have fullled their CLE requirement but need administrative access to easily manage CLE for the option allows you to build your bundle and to access resourceful information for their entire team. strategically select the content that pertains to practice areas. your needs. Both option are priced the same. View Now View Now (https://clecenter.com/CleForFirm/Default.aspx) View Now (https://clecenter.com/Default.aspx) (https://clecenter.com/Program/Premium.aspx)

CLE Center → (https://clecenter.com)

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story. Subscribe Now As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account (https://store.law.com/registration/login.aspx? (https://store.law.com/registration promoCode=CA) page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot promoCode=CA) aord to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day. Privacy Policy (https://www.alm.com/pr policy-new/)

(/therecorder/) https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202721932880/ 5/6 2/23/2018 Ellen Pao Loses Gender Bias Suit Against Kleiner Perkins | The Recorder

Publications (/publications) / Law Topics (/topics) / Cases (/therecorder/case-digests/) / Business of Law (/therecorder/business-of-law/) / In-House Counsel (/therecorder/in-house-counsel/) / Columns (/therecorder/columns/) / Classieds (/therecorder/static/place-a-classied / Editorial Calendar (/therecorder/editorial-calendar/) / Events (/therecorder/events/) / More + (/therecorder/sitemap/)

About The Recorder (/therecorder/static/about-us/) / Contact Us (/therecorder/static/contact-us/) / Site Map (/therecorder/sitemap/) / Advertise With Us (http://mediakit.alm / Place A Classied Ad (/therecorder/static/place-a-classied) / Customer Care (https://www.alm.com/contact-us/) / Terms of Service (https://www.alm.com/terms-of-use / FAQ (https://store.law.com/Registration/myAccount.aspx?promoCode=lc#/Help) / Privacy Policy (https://www.alm.com/privacy-policy-new)

(/)

FOLLOW US (https://www.facebook.com/LawdotcomALM/) (https://twitter.com/lawdotcom) (https://plus.google.com/105568464779205123032/posts)

(https://www.linkedin.com/company/25021727/) (http://feeds.feedblitz.com/law/law-com-newswire)

Publications Law Topics Rankings More Law.com

The American Lawyer Litigation (/topics/litigation/) AmLaw 100 Events (/events/) About Us (/static/abou (/americanlawyer/) Transactional Law (/americanlawyer/rankings/am-law- ALM Intelligence (/alm-intelligence/) Contact Us (/static/cont 100/) Corporate Counsel (/corpcounsel/) (/topics/transactional-law/) Editorial Calendar (/editorial-calendar/) Site Map (/sitemap AmLaw 200 National Law Journal Law Firm Management (/topics/law- Resources (/resources/) Advertise With Us (/americanlawyer/rankings/am-law- (/nationallawjournal/) rm-management/) (http://mediakit.alm.c 200/) Legal Dictionary New York Law Journal Legal Practice Management (https://dictionary.law.com/) Customer Suppor Global 100 (/newyorklawjournal/) (/topics/legal-practice-management/) (https://www.alm.com/co (/americanlawyer/rankings/global- Jobs (http://lawjobs.com/) New Jersey Law Journal Cybersecurity (/topics/cybersecurity/) 100/) Law Firms (/law-rms/) Terms of Service (/njlawjournal/) Intellectual Property (https://www.alm.com/term National Law Journal 500 Law Schools (/topics/legal-education/) The Recorder (/therecorder/) (/topics/intellectual-property/) (/nationallawjournal/rankings/the-nlj- FAQ 500/) (/sites/almsta/2017/10/20/ More Publications › (/publications/) More Law Topics › (/topics/) asked-questions/ Pro Bono Scorecard (/americanlawyer/rankings/pro-bono/) Privacy Policy (https://www.alm.com/priv The A-List new/) (/americanlawyer/rankings/a-list)

More Rankings › (/rankings/)

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

https://www.law.com/therecorder/almID/1202721932880/ 6/6 2/23/2018 Silicon Valley figures caught up in sexual-harassment scandals

BusinessTechnology Silicon Valley gures get swept up in the unfolding sexual- 14 harassment crisis Here’s the latest look at who did what

DFJ Fallen VC chief Steve Jurvetson is one of a number of Silicon Valley gures caught up in the sexual-harassment crisis

By PATRICK MAY | [email protected] | Bay Area News Group PUBLISHED: December 6, 2017 at 2:45 pm | UPDATED: December 7, 2017 at 9:41 am

While Hollywood, New York City and Washington D.C. have been rocked by recent sex-harassment scandals, roping in a herd of celebs and pols from Charlie Rose to Roy Moore to Sen. Al Franken and Garrison Keillor, two prominent West Coast addresses have also been put on the national Men-Acting-Badly map.

Here’s our running update on some of the folks who’ve been caught up in that net:

SILICON VALLEY

Andy Rubin/Google

November 2017

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/06/silicon-valley-figures-get-swept-up-in-the-unfolding-sexual-harassment-crisis/ 1/3 2/23/2018 Silicon Valley figures caught up in sexual-harassment scandals

As the Googler behind the Android smartphone software, Rubin achieved a rock-start status in the Valley before stories in The Information emerged that he’d been the subject of an internal Google investigation in 2014 after a female employee complained about what the New York Times called “an inappropriate relationship with a female subordinate while he was at Google.” Rubin, who took a leave of absence from the start-up he now runs, had done nothing wrong, said a spokesman. “Any relationship that Mr. Rubin had while at Google was consensual and did not involve any person who reported to him,” Michael Sitrick told The Times. “Mr. Rubin was never told by Google that he engaged in any misconduct while at Google and he did not, either while Google or since.” The Times, which spoke with someone “with knowledge of the matter,” said the “inquiry found that the relationship was inappropriate because the woman worked on the Android team while Mr. Rubin was leading it.”

Steve Jurvetson/ Draper Fisher Jurvetson

November 2017

A perennial member of Forbes’ “Midas List” of Tech’s Top Investors and once named “Venture Capitalist of the Year” by Deloitte, Jurvetson stepped down from his perch at DFJ after the company caught him lying about what, according to Recode, were “serious allegations” of inappropriate behavior with women he worked with. The company’s investigation “found, in part, a pattern of dishonesty with women, according to other sources, including extra-marital affairs that, in the eyes of some, crossed into the professional world. Jurvetson also contributed to a difcult work environment, a source alleged. The complete circumstances that forced Jurvetson from his job are still in dispute, although both sides say his decision to depart was mutual.” Neither the company nor Jurvetson commented about the allegations reported by Recode. In a statement, Jurvetson said he “left because of the acrimony that arose between DFJ partners in the wake of the investigation.”

David Drummond/Google

November 2017

According to a report in The Information, Google’s top lawyer had an extramarital affair with a female subordinate in his department. “The two had a child together,” said the story. “When the affair was disclosed to Google’s human resources department, the woman, a paralegal, was moved into the sales department. She later left the company; Mr. Drummond still works there.” Drummond currently serves as senior vice president of corporate development and chief legal ofcer for Alphabet Inc., Google’s parent company.

Robert Scoble/tech blogger at Scobelizer

October 2017

As New York Magazine put it, “Silicon Valley has a culture problem. The list of allegations of sexual harassment, assault, and discrimination against women in the tech industry seems to grow daily. Today’s addition: Blogger and former Microsoft tech evangelist turned major player in the world of AR/VR, Robert Scoble.” The story describes a post on Medium in which journalist Quinn Norton alleges Scoble attacked her at a 2010 tech retreated called Foo Camp. The story said the blogger “turned on her after he was pried away from a ‘drunkenly disoriented’ woman he was making out with at the campsite.” According to Quinn, “without any more warning, Scoble was on me. I felt one hand on my breast and his arm reaching around and grabbing my butt. Scoble is considerably bigger than I am, and I realized quickly I wasn’t going to be able to push him away.” The magazine said that Scoble later apologized for his inappropriate behavior, writing on Medium that “I must admit my own role in sexism in this industry and world. I am awed too, and am working to x those aws.”

Travis Kalanick/Uber

June 2017

The most high-prole sexual harassment scandal in tech involves Uber, the once high-ying ride-hailing startup whose co-founder and CEO, Travis Kalanick, resigned from the top spot in June. His exit from the San Francisco company came after a restorm sparked by a blog post by Susan Fowler, a former Uber engineer who says she was sexually harassed by her superiors while at Uber, and that management failed to take action. She also said sexism was rampant in Uber’s culture. Kalanick’s leaked emails, in which he referred to employees possibly having sex while on a company trip, didn’t help matters.

Justin Caldbeck/Binary Capital

June 2017

The co-founder of San Francisco-based Binary Capital, a venture capital rm, stepped down after being accused of sexual harassment by six different women. The allegations include grabbing one woman’s thigh under a table; offering another woman a position at a company he was considering funding; and sending another explicit text messages. Caldbeck later sent handwritten notes to his accusers, according to Wired, and “others to whom he now thinks he may have acted improperly, as well as emails to women who’ve been critical of him in the media. But some recipients of Caldbeck’s ‘apology’ emails are not convinced. They believe the disgraced investor is exploiting the public discussion around sexual harassment to recast himself as an ally,” said the story in Wired.

Dave McClure/500 Startups

July 2017

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/06/silicon-valley-figures-get-swept-up-in-the-unfolding-sexual-harassment-crisis/ 2/3 2/23/2018 Silicon Valley figures caught up in sexual-harassment scandals

In July, the CEO of 500 Startups apologized, called himself a creep and quit the Mountain View-based tech incubator he helped launch after the New York Times reported that he had hit on a job candidate he was trying to recruit. He admitted that he had made advances toward multiple women, and said his female co-founder had asked him to resign. Later that month, a reporter alleged that another 500 Startups partner groped her.

Amit Singhal/Google & Uber

February 2017

A Google engineer hired by Uber, Singhai was asked to resign when Uber discovered he did not disclose allegations of harassment at Google. Singhai left his job at Uber as its SVP of engineering because, according to Recode, “he did not disclose to the car-hailing company that he left Google a year earlier after top executives there informed him of an allegation of sexual harassment from an employee that an internal investigation had found ‘credible.'” Singhal was asked to resign by then-Uber CEO Travis Kalanick, who also later stepped down. Sources at Uber told Record that the company did “extensive background checks of Singhal and that it did not uncover any hint of the circumstances of his departure from Google. Singhal disputed the allegation to Google execs at the time.” And, in a statement to Record’s Kara Swisher, Singhai denied the allegation while acknowledging the dispute with Google: “Harassment is unacceptable in any setting. I certainly want everyone to know that I do not condone and have not committed such behavior,” he wrote in an email. “In my 20-year career, I’ve never been accused of anything like this before and the decision to leave Google was my own.”

Staff writer Levi Sumagaysay also contributed to this report.

SPONSORED CONTENT 7 Mind-Blowing Credit Cards For Those With Excellent Credit By NextAdvisor Banks are offering unprecedented offers to people with great credit. Get 0% APR until 2019, a $200 intro bonus, double cash back & more.

Tags: Regional, Sexual Harassment, Silicon Valley

Patrick May Patrick May is an award-winning writer for the Bay Area News Group working with the business desk as a general assignment reporter. Over his 34 years in daily newspapers, he has traveled overseas and around the nation, covering wars and natural disasters, writing both breaking news stories and human-interest features. He has won numerous national and regional writing awards during his years as a reporter, 17 of them spent at the Miami Herald.

 Follow Patrick May @patmaymerc

SUBSCRIBE TODAY! ALL ACCESS DIGITAL OFFER FOR JUST 99 CENTS!

https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/12/06/silicon-valley-figures-get-swept-up-in-the-unfolding-sexual-harassment-crisis/ 3/3