
Google X Executive Accused of Sexual Harassment Still Works There, Employees Say - smacktoward
https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassment-allegations-employment.html
======
Bucephalus355
I had dinner with a friend last week who mentioned, almost in passing, that he
had been reported to HR at Google. Was shocking, since I had worked with him
at another company for a decade, and he had been very kind and compassionate,
almost to a fault. He is a gay white male, but also a Christian (can’t
remember which denomination or whatever). He had assumed it was over something
religious he had said, HR did not tell him and spoke (understandably) in
pretty general / vague terms.

This person was weirdly resigned to their fate. They are a contractor, so
maybe they’re scared of being let go, but the vibe I got from him was just
“that’s how it is these days and I have to accept it”.

I guess what creeped me out was how he never heard what the accusation was. It
was very kafkaesque, a court you don’t recognize for a crime you aren’t told.

Again I want to emphasize he was in one of those positions Google does where
they test you out as a contractor for 18 months before deciding to flip you or
not, so it could have been related to that different kind of employment
status.

~~~
1024core
DeVaul (the accused) admitted it and apologized.

~~~
mythrwy
Is that kind of like plea bargain though?

More trouble and potential negative repercussions than to fight about it than
just fess up and make it go away?

I don't know the specifics of this case, could well not be, just wondering if
it's possible.

------
madrox
I've lived in San Francisco for a while, and it's impossible to socialize here
without being confronted by polyamory and openly casual attitudes toward
alternative lifestyles. The first time poly came up for me was a meetup at
Twitter, of all places. After a couple years here it becomes a norm that
everyone here has a kink and is pretty open about it. The people that go to
burning man (I, too, am a burner) never fully decompress.

I say all this because I can totally see how someone normalizes to stuff the
rest of the world would say isn't ok. I don't think DeVaul is a creep. I think
he's lived in the SF cultural bubble too long. Whether he should lose his job
for that, I don't know, but I'm one of those people who think intention is 80%
of what matters in cases like this.

This is also why I think it's important that tech leadership expands beyond
the bay. It's subtle (or maybe to some not so subtle) ways like this that
highlight how people here think differently about what should be normal.

~~~
romwell
The problem was not kink. The problem was not Burning Man.

The problem was:

    
    
      a)Mentioning his relationship status ("poly") to a candidate during the interview
    
      b)Asking for a sexual favor off-site while the candidate was still waiting for response
    

This is textbook discrimination.

It's good to see him go.[1]

[1][https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-
alp...](https://www.axios.com/executive-accused-of-harassment-at-alphabet-x-
unit-is-out-6f583d1e-91e3-4a8b-ae2b-51fd4517ec74.html)

~~~
KaiserPro
It is indeed wrong, for all these points. Even if you subscribe to the "its
ok, its a cultural thing" Its wrong _for the company_

Why? because he is suggesting that said person can be hired because of a
quality unrelated to what the company needs. It is at this point that "he is
an exec and therefore creates value at the company far out weighing this
'temporary impairment of judgement'" becomes null and void.

His judgement is causing shareholder harm. Therefore the company should find
someone who is able to provide the company with better value and judgement.

------
chadbennett
Is it not still considered an international human right to be presumed
innocent until proven guilty? (UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 11)

Have we reached a point in society that an unverified accusation is all that
is necessary for termination?

~~~
ashelmire
People have forgotten that we enshrined that as a legal right because we
determined it was best for society (or, more likely, never thought about it).
It's not just a legal principle; it's a principle of just society. When we
ignore it in the corporate world or other aspects of private life, we're
saying that we think mob justice and presumption of guilt produces a better
world (or a better corporation, etc).

Of course, even in our legal system, all it takes is an accusation. How many
people are currently serving times for crimes they didn't commit? I'd bet the
answer is disturbing high, especially when the level of certainty is supposed
to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Why do so many convicted of murder or other
crimes later get proven innocent? If someone didn't commit a crime... you'd
think there was quite a reasonable doubt.

~~~
JoshTriplett
Leaving aside that the person in question here has _admitted_ fault, so
there's no question of guilt here...

I often marvel that some people seem willing to _completely_ ignore evidence
that doesn't rise to the level of a criminal conviction.

Any information, whether an admission of guilt, an accusation, multiple
accusations, direct observation, observation of borderline or boundary-pushing
behavior, or anythings else, provides some amount of evidence. Start with some
prior probability of someone engaging in bad behavior (of any type, this isn't
specific to harassment), in the absence of any information. Update that
probability based on what evidence you have. You now have some estimated
probability of someone engaging in that bad behavior.

There's a threshold ("beyond a reasonable doubt", say 99%) where you'd use it
to convict someone of a crime, depriving them of personal liberty to protect
others and theoretically to attempt to reform them. There's a _lower_
threshold (50%, "preponderance of the evidence" or "balance of probabilities")
where you'd use in a civil case, such as a lawsuit. There's a still _lower_
threshold used for "probable cause", enough to get a warrant to investigate.
There's a still _lower_ threshold for "reasonable suspicion".

See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(law)#Legal_st...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_\(law\)#Legal_standards_for_burden_of_proof)
for a wide variety of _legal_ standards _other_ than "beyond a reasonable
doubt" that the US legal system already applies, and some of the circumstances
in which they apply.

So, continuing the same premise: there's a threshold (most definitely _not_
99%) where you'd decide not to put someone in a position of power that they
seem likely to abuse. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to use a
quote from someone to endorse a press release. There's a threshold where you'd
refuse to employ someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let
someone attend a conference where they might harm others or make others
unwelcome. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to let someone babysit
your kids. There's a threshold where you'd decide not to date someone, or be
friends with someone. There's a threshold where you'd decide to make sure
you're never alone with someone.

I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that _all_ of those should
have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a
reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest _caution_? Or do you
see the benefit of taking _proportionate_ steps based on lesser probabilities?

~~~
lliamander
First of all, as an aside, I think a silver lining to all of these
controversial accusations is that many people are becoming more educated on
standards of evidence and discussing what standard to use when. I think a
better understanding of these concepts is probably the best way to find common
ground.

> I don't think it's at all reasonable to presume that all of those should
> have a threshold of "beyond a reasonable doubt". Would you require "beyond a
> reasonable doubt" before you'd even apply the slightest caution? Or do you
> see the benefit of taking proportionate steps based on lesser probabilities?

I absolutely agree. The question is, what standard would you use? Likewise,
what standard would you want used by your employer if you were accused of
something?

------
gadders
I think it's amazing to compare the handling of this case with that of James
Damore. Whatever you may think of what he wrote, he never physically assaulted
anybody.

~~~
MrZongle2
No, but for many Damore is guilty of wrongthink, and deserved his fate.

The fact that _your_ comment was downvoted without comment seems quite
telling.

~~~
ohithereyou
Right. Nowadays, physical altercations can be swept under the rug. Ideological
ones, not having drunk sufficient amounts of kool-aid, generally cannot be.

------
eqdw
It is equal parts concerning and hilarious to me that actions taken at Burning
Man are punished by an employer.

3/4ths of the tech industry would lose their jobs if such a rule was applied
consistently

~~~
KaiserPro
what one does in their own time is indeed nothing to do with the company.

Suggesting that one can get a job with one's employer if you just do x, is
either fraud or gross misconduct.

If he had not mentioned the job then he'd just be an arsehole who discusses
their sexual proclivities in an professional setting.

------
onetimemanytime
Should take a LOT more than an accusation to get fired.

~~~
lucian-g
Read the article - the title is misleading: it suggests he was just accused --
while he actually admitted the events took place

[https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-
harassm...](https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/google-x-sexual-harassment-
allegations-employment.html) > Simpson says she was asked by officials at
Google not to speak about the incident again. In a statement to the Times,
DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.”

[https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-
misconduct-...](https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-
review) > In 2013, Richard DeVaul, one of the directors for Google’s moonshot
division X, invited job interviewee Star Simpson to arts festival Burning Man.
There, DeVaul offered the engineer a back rub, asking her to remove her shirt.
She felt coerced to at least receive a neck rub. She was passed over for the
job without explanation. After hesitating for two years, Simpson reported the
matter to human resources after seeing DeVaul rise to prominence in profiles
from The New York Times and The Atlantic. DeVaul was disciplined — Google has
not said what action it took — and has since apologized for an “error of
judgment.”

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-
sexual-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-
harassment-andy-rubin.html) > In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an
“error of judgment.” He said X decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went
to Burning Man and that he did not realize she had not been informed.

------
randyrand
He's accused of sexual harassment for this at _burning man_? I thought part of
the point of Burning man is sexual freedom? The expectation at burning man is
that you will encounter nudity, sexuality, etc. It's like complaining of
seeing your boss at a swingers club.

edit: 'seeing' at a swingers club is implying that some sexual move/request
was made. That's the point of these clubs.

~~~
warent
Does it sound plausible that the following thought crossed her mind: "I feel
uncomfortable with this, but if I turn it down, the future of my career might
be jeopardized."

> "It's like complaining of seeing your boss at a swingers club."

No, she did not complain about _seeing_ him there. You are getting mixed up.
He actually made an advance on her there. That is also not okay for a boss to
do in a swingers club either.

~~~
randyrand
see my edit.

as to your first point, it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s
harrassment to do it repeatedly in a harassing way.

If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any
advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment! you
don’t need to be someone’s boss in order to have the ability to do harm to
someone.

Not hiring someone over a sexual denial, stalking, rape, spreading false
rumors about people - these are all illegal for a reason - so that we can deny
people without constant fear of harm.

What this google exec did was not harassment.

~~~
eesmith
"it’s not sexual harassment make a sexual advance. It’s harrassment to do it
repeatedly in a harassing way."

That is not a correct interpretation of US law. Sexual harassment in the
workplace includes any unwelcome sexual conduct. Quoting from
[https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html](https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html)
:

> Sexual harassment is "unwelcome . . . verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
> nature . . . ." 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11(a). Because sexual attraction may often
> play a role in the day-to-day social exchange between employees, "the
> distinction between invited, uninvited-but-welcome, offensive- but-
> tolerated, and flatly rejected" sexual advances may well be difficult to
> discern. Barnes v. Costle, 561 F.2d 983, 999, 14 EPD ¶ 7755 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
> (MacKinnon J., concurring). But this distinction is essential because sexual
> conduct becomes unlawful only when it is unwelcome. The Eleventh Circuit
> provided a general definition of "unwelcome conduct" in Henson v. City of
> Dundee, 682 F.2d at 903: the challenged conduct must be unwelcome "in the
> sense that the employee did not solicit or incite it, and in the sense that
> the employee regarded the conduct as undesirable or offensive."

The specific legal definition is at
[https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11](https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/1604.11)
. Note that "repeated" in not in that definition.

For example, going back to the EEOC guidelines: "in "quid pro quo" cases _a
single sexual advance may constitute harassment if it is linked to the
granting or denial of employment benefits._ " That seems to be the exact issue
at hand, yes?

Furthermore, even in the context of 'hostile workplace', which is distinct
from 'quid pro quo', Barrett v. Omaha National Bank established that even "a
single, unusually severe incident of harassment" may be enough to
"constitute[] actionable sexual harassment".

"Not hiring someone over a sexual denial" is quid pro quo harassment, hence
illegal. Was there some other law you were thinking of which made it illegal?

"If “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is all it took for any
advance to be harassment - then every sexual advance would be harassment!"

Which why the law doesn't say that. The same EEOC guidelines say:

> In determining whether harassment is sufficiently severe or pervasive to
> create a hostile environment, the harasser's conduct should be evaluated
> from the objective standpoint of a "reasonable person." Title VII does not
> serve "as a vehicle for vindicating the petty slights suffered by the
> hypersensitive."

It then gives an example:

> Example - Charging Party alleges that her coworker made repeated unwelcome
> sexual advances toward her. An investigation discloses that the alleged
> "advances" consisted of invitations to join a group of employees who
> regularly socialized at dinner after work. The coworker's invitations,
> viewed in that context and from the perspective of a reasonable person,
> would not have created a hostile environment and therefore did not
> constitute sexual harassment.

and, regarding hostile workplaces:

> As the Court noted in Vinson, "mere utterance of an ethnic or racial epithet
> which engenders offensive feelings in an employee would not affect the
> conditions of employment to a sufficiently significant degree to violate
> Title VII."

~~~
randyrand
I appreciate the legal perspective.

It seems rather reasonable, but leaves a lot up the the interpretation of the
judge/jury if it goes to court.

There's also something to be said for public social opinion/corporate
standards which are distinct from law. Google has its own set of rules based
off of public opinion that are only allowed to be more strict than the law. I
think this deserves more discussion than the current law as far as this point
about hypothetical harm is concerned - law follows public opinion and right
now the law is kept very general.

I'm glad we agree that “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is
irrelevant to the law, and I argue it should be for public opinion as well.
It's unfortunate how common this refrain is, but I think it is the minority
opinion.

~~~
eesmith
Do you understand that your previously stated views concerning the definition
of sexual harassment aren't correct?

"I think this deserves more discussion than the current law"

You were the one who connected this issue to the law when you wrote that
'[n]ot hiring someone over a sexual denial' was illegal but not sexual
harassment. I wanted to show how that characterization was incorrect.

"I'm glad we agree that “something bad might happen to me if I say no” is
irrelevant to the law,"

I have no idea what you are talking about. Quid quo pro harassment
specifically concerns the topic 'something bad might happen to me if I say no'
\- it's very relevant.

~~~
randyrand
I think we are talking past each other a bit.

Not hiring someone over a sexual denial _is_ sexual harassment. Not sure where
the miscommunication happened there. Its literally the ground I stood on when
saying 'something bad might happen to me if I say no' is a bogus way to
culturally define SH' \- because that's true of all human interaction. Law is
what helps make us forget about the fact that my neighbor could stab me if I
deny them something they want - yet we don't make it illegal for our neighbors
to ask us for things - which is what some are proposing.

We are talking about 2 things here:

1\. should it be legal to make a sexual advance even though you could
theoretically harm them if they say no.

2\. should it be legal to not hire someone because you sexually denied them.

I'm using the fact that #2 is already illegal to strengthen my point that #1
should remain legal and culturally acceptable, and that doing otherwise is
ridiculous.

~~~
eesmith
You said that a sexual advance on its own is not sexual harassment, but rather
that multiple sexual advances are required before it can be termed sexual
harassment. I pointed out that US case law says that even a single incident of
an unwanted sexual advance may be severe enough to be considered sexual
harassment under US law. I do not think you accept that your personal
definition is not appropriate when discussing the workplace.

Since (I assume) you are involved in a workplace, I think it's important to
let you know, in order to help reduce the misinformation about what sexual
harassment law actually covers.

Your "theoretical" in #1 has two common interpretations. 1) minor or abstract,
as might be perceived by the 'hypersensitive'. This is already rejected by
case law and widely agreed that it is irrelevant.

But theoretical can also mean 2) speculation which is not yet realized but may
turn out to be correct. As examples #2, antimatter was theoretical in Dirac's
1928 paper, and discovered by Anderson in 1932; Neptune's existence was
theoretical when Bouvard used perturbations in Uranus's orbit to deduce that
Neptune existed, before Galle observed it in a telescope.

It is not hard to come up with examples where the a supervisor may make an
unwanted sexual advance where employee does not know if there will be negative
job consequences to saying no, but does not say 'no' for fear of the - at that
point - theoretical negative consequences for saying no. Eg, Meritor Savings
Bank v. Vinson.

> Taylor treated her in a fatherly way and made no sexual advances. Shortly
> thereafter, however, he invited her out to dinner and, during the course of
> the meal, suggested that they go to a motel to have sexual relations. At
> first she refused, but out of what she described as fear of losing her job
> she eventually agreed. According to respondent, Taylor thereafter made
> repeated demands upon her for sexual favors, usually at the branch, both
> during and after business hours; she estimated that over the next several
> years she had intercourse with him some 40 or 50 times.

The District Court originally declared "if respondent and the supervisor did
have a sexual relationship, it was voluntary and had nothing to do with her
continued employment at the bank, and that therefore respondent was not the
victim of sexual harassment." The Court of Appeals reversed that decision, and
the Supreme Court agreed. This is the court case which determined that sexual
harassment can be a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Nor must there be actual negative consequences. It is the unwelcomeness which
makes it harassment, and from the Meritor decision, 'harassment that, while
not affecting economic benefits, creates a hostile or offensive working
environment'.

The legal question isn't "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sexual
harassment?" but "does an unwanted sexual advance count as sufficient level of
sexual harassment so as to constitute workplace discrimination?".

~~~
randyrand
For your first 2 paragraphs, yes. Agreed.

I don't understand the distinction you're making between "1) minor or
abstract" and "2) speculation which is not yet realized but may turn out to be
correct." Could you elaborate on #1.

Again I also want to make the point that at least for this discussion I'm
putting myself in the position of someone who is _creating_ the law - not
following it. But yes we should know what the current law is and what the case
law is - yes. It can help us guide us there. So thanks for your insight there.

------
Raphmedia
Accused != convicted.

The article itself says that 48 people (13 of them seniors members) were fired
for similar claims. It's not as if Google was turning a blind eye.

~~~
lucian-g
confessed != accused

> In a statement to the Times, DeVaul apologized for his “error of judgment.”

Quote comes from [https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-
misconduct-...](https://pocketnow.com/nyt-google-paid-andy-rubin-misconduct-
review)

> DeVaul was disciplined — Google has not said what action it took — and has
> since apologized for an “error of judgment.”

~~~
dragonwriter
Apologizing for an error of judgment does not mean admitting to the details of
the accusation.

~~~
lucian-g
I find your answer disingenuous.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-
sexual-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-
harassment-andy-rubin.html)

> In a statement, Mr. DeVaul apologized for an “error of judgment.” He said X
> decided not to hire Ms. Simpson before she went to Burning Man and that he
> did not realize she had not been informed.

------
devit
<< As the Times reported, DeVaul, whose title is “director of rapid evaluation
and mad science,” told a young female job candidate during a 2013 interview
that he was in a polyamorous relationship. Later, when he saw the woman at
Burning Man while she was still waiting to hear back about the job, DeVaul
asked her if she would take off her shirt for a back massage. >>

This certainly does not seem something that warrants firing, and might even be
correct behavior depending on circumstances (e.g. if he had reason to believe
she would not feel coerced or otherwise be happy consenting).

~~~
dbt00
There is no universe in which a (non sex work) job interview is the right
venue for a conversation about your sexual proclivities. FFS.

~~~
jtmcmc
I have known many interviewees/ers that talked about their queerness in tech
interviews.

