Hoisting the Left on Their Own Proud Legal Petards

Readability

Hoisting the Left on Their Own Proud Legal Petards

Shel­don Cooper: I came to file a com­plaint. Some­body has made me feel uncom­fort­able in the work­place by using lan­guage of an inap­pro­pri­ate and sex­ual nature.
Ms. Davis: And who was that?
Shel­don Cooper: You, you dirty birdie. I thought about the things you said to me yes­ter­day, and I real­ized I’m deeply offended. Now, be a dear and get me one of those com­plaint forms.

The Big Bang The­ory: The Egg Salad Equiv­a­lency 2013

At Salon​.com a rather late real­iza­tion has set in:

Dang — looks like those women-​only “Won­der Woman” screen­ings were illegal

Turns out that when men whined about being banned from the screen­ings, they had a legal point

Salon was shocked SHOCKED to find out that under the laws of lib­eral Austin Texas, dis­crim­i­na­tion is dis­crim­i­na­tion is discrimination.

Over at some col­leges they are mak­ing sim­i­lar dis­cov­ers at a cost greater than a com­ple­men­tary Won­der Woman DVD

A Uni­ver­sity of Texas stu­dent claims in a law­suit that UT Pres­i­dent Gre­gory L. Fenves mis­ap­plied the school’s sex­ual assault pol­icy and sus­pended him for five semes­ters even though his accuser agreed to have sex after a soror­ity for­mal in spring 2016.

And the costs aren’t lim­ited to col­leges either:

Rolling Stone has set­tled a law­suit with the Uni­ver­sity of Vir­ginia fra­ter­nity whose mem­bers were falsely accused of rap­ing a female stu­dent in a Nov. 2014 arti­cle, The Daily Caller has learned. A source involved at the national level with the fra­ter­nity, Phi Kappa Psi, tells TheDC that Rolling Stone will pay $1.65 mil­lion to set­tle the defama­tion suit.”

What’s really funny about this is these results were com­pletely pre­dictable because of laws our friends on the left spent decades get­ting in place:

Accord­ing to Dan Eaton, an attor­ney and ethics pro­fes­sor at San Diego Uni­ver­sity, the engi­neer cer­tainly has grounds for a case on two fronts. “First, fed­eral labor law bars even non-​union employ­ers like Google from pun­ish­ing an employee for com­mu­ni­cat­ing with fel­low employ­ees about improv­ing work­ing con­di­tions,” Eaton writes.

And sec­ond, because the memo was a state­ment of polit­i­cal views, Eaton says Google may have vio­lated Cal­i­for­nia law which “pro­hibits employ­ers from threat­en­ing to fire employ­ees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopt­ing a par­tic­u­lar polit­i­cal course of action.”

An inter­na­tional cor­po­ra­tion with armies of both lawyers, Google knew all this. They decided to take their chances with state and fed­eral law any­way rather than stick up for one of their employ­ees and risk pub­lic back­lash. That’s an incred­i­bly telling deci­sion from a com­pany that has mas­tered every­thing from arti­fi­cial intel­li­gence to self-​driving cars.

The piece ends with the idea that google is more afraid of lib­eral anger than expen­sive law­suits, but once those expen­sive law­suits start com­ing, fol­lowed by the dis­crim­i­na­tion law­suits from con­ser­v­a­tives who are denied posi­tions, and other law­suits con­cern­ing “hos­tile work envi­ron­ments” which our friends on the left have so gra­ciously pro­vided us with, the worm will start turn­ing quickly, par­tic­u­larly for pub­licly held com­pa­nies who have to explain to their share­hold­ers why keep­ing the per­pet­u­ally out­raged left is more impor­tant than their bot­tom line.

As for those who think Google’s size mak­ing them safe from this kind of thing. I’m old enough to remem­ber when AOL was the net and the net was AOL. Google should take note.

After all if front groups that are essen­tially fax machines with a post office boxes and a few peo­ple tweet­ing can scare a com­pany, how much so group con­sist­ing of actual peo­ple in quan­tity who both vote and shop?

Per­haps Google should ask Mizzou?

Sheldon Cooper:  I came to file a complaint. Somebody has made me feel uncomfortable in the workplace by using language of an inappropriate and sexual nature.
Ms. Davis: And who was that?
Sheldon Cooper:   You, you dirty birdie. I thought about the things you said to me yesterday, and I realized I’m deeply offended. Now, be a dear and get me one of those complaint forms.

The Big Bang Theory:  The Egg Salad Equivalency 2013

At Salon.com a rather late realization has set in:

Dang — looks like those women-only “Wonder Woman” screenings were illegal

Turns out that when men whined about being banned from the screenings, they had a legal point

Salon was shocked SHOCKED to find out that under the laws of liberal Austin Texas, discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

Over at some colleges they are making similar discovers at a cost greater than a complementary Wonder Woman DVD

A University of Texas student claims in a lawsuit that UT President Gregory L. Fenves misapplied the school’s sexual assault policy and suspended him for five semesters even though his accuser agreed to have sex after a sorority formal in spring 2016.

And the costs aren’t limited to colleges either:

“Rolling Stone has settled a lawsuit with the University of Virginia fraternity whose members were falsely accused of raping a female student in a Nov. 2014 article, The Daily Caller has learned. A source involved at the national level with the fraternity, Phi Kappa Psi, tells TheDC that Rolling Stone will pay $1.65 million to settle the defamation suit.”

What’s really funny about this is these results were completely predictable because of laws our friends on the left spent decades getting in place:

According to Dan Eaton, an attorney and ethics professor at San Diego University, the engineer certainly has grounds for a case on two fronts. “First, federal labor law bars even non-union employers like Google from punishing an employee for communicating with fellow employees about improving working conditions,” Eaton writes.

And second, because the memo was a statement of political views, Eaton says Google may have violated California law which “prohibits employers from threatening to fire employees to get them to adopt or refrain from adopting a particular political course of action.”

An international corporation with armies of both lawyers, Google knew all this. They decided to take their chances with state and federal law anyway rather than stick up for one of their employees and risk public backlash. That’s an incredibly telling decision from a company that has mastered everything from artificial intelligence to self-driving cars.

The piece ends with the idea that google is more afraid of liberal anger than expensive lawsuits, but once those expensive lawsuits start coming, followed by the discrimination lawsuits from conservatives who are denied positions, and other lawsuits concerning “hostile work environments” which our friends on the left have so graciously provided us with, the worm will start turning quickly, particularly for publicly held companies who have to explain to their shareholders why keeping the perpetually outraged left is more important than their bottom line.

As for those who think Google’s size making them safe from this kind of thing.  I’m old enough to remember when AOL was the net and the net was AOL.  Google should take note.

After all if front groups that are essentially fax machines with a post office boxes and a few people tweeting can  scare a company, how much so group consisting of actual people in quantity who both vote and shop?

Perhaps Google should ask Mizzou?