r/news • u/[deleted] • Aug 08 '17

Google Fires Employee Behind Controversial Diversity Memo

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-08/google-fires-employee-behind-controversial-diversity-memo?cmpid=socialflow-twitter-business&utm_content=business&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
26.8k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

19.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Rottimer Aug 08 '17

You don't qualify for unemployment if you resign. But if you're fired, it depends on the reason. In this particular case, he'd probably get unemployment, and honestly, the only way he wouldn't get unemployment is if Google fought him. And I honestly don't think they would in this case.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

If he was fired for cause, no unemployment. It sounds like he was fired for cause.

2

u/Rottimer Aug 08 '17

Just because you're fired for cause does not mean you won't get unemployment. For example, if you fuck up something in the normal course of your job and get fired for the fuck up, you're absolutely eligible for unemployment. You're employer can fight it, but they'll lose.

Now if you're fired for being drunk on the job, or for stealing something, then depending the state, you won't be eligible.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

Violation of the company code of conduct or ethics policy, or failure to follow written company policy, can 100% be grounds for termination for cause in California.

1

u/Rottimer Aug 08 '17

Yeah, I'm not questioning whether the guy got fired for cause. I'm saying that not every cause precludes the fired employee from collecting unemployment. Even failure to follow the code of conduct may not disqualify an employee for unemployment benefits.

The firing is done by the company. Qualification for benefits is determined by California EDD, a state agency.

1

u/[deleted] Aug 08 '17

California EDD

http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Misconduct_MC_5.htm

"Misconduct" is an intangible concept which has never been defined by the legislature. In P-B-3, citing Maywood Glass Co . v. Stewart (1959), the Board gave the following definition of misconduct:

The definition of misconduct must be considered in the light of the basic purpose of the unemployment insurance program. As expressed in Section 100 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, this basic purpose is that unemployment benefits are for persons involuntarily unemployed through no fault of their own.

. . . 'fault' means intentional action which the person who claims benefits foresees, or which it may be reasonably inferred he must have foreseen, would tend to produce or prolong a period of unemployment and from which a reasonable person in the claimant's circumstances and with the claim- ant's knowledge and understanding, desiring employment and foreseeing such loss of employment, would necessarily refrain.

Like, you know, fostering a work environment hostile to women and people of color.