
Termination of Mozilla CEO Likely Violated California Law - duked
http://www.vtzlawblog.com/2014/04/articles/discrimination/termination-of-mozilla-ceo-likely-violated-california-law/
======
irq
He resigned - he was not terminated. He says so right on his personal blog:

[https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-
mission/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/)

More details: [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-
resignat...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/)

------
andymoe
He was involved in Mozilla from the beginning. My gut tells me he did what he
thought was right to allow Mozilla to move forward once he realized the bad PR
was not going away no matter how hard he tried to fix or assure folks they had
nothing to worry about. Obviously this is conjecture on my part.

~~~
dllthomas
That is in line with what I've read from people closer to the matter.

------
fiatmoney
To the people who say he resigned and was not fired: there is such a thing as
"constructive dismissal", which basically means "forced to resign".

~~~
ceejayoz
Wiki says California's definition of that is:

> "In order to establish a constructive discharge, an employee must plead and
> prove, by the usual preponderance of the evidence standard, that the
> employer either intentionally created or knowingly permitted working
> conditions that were so intolerable or aggravated at the time of the
> employee's resignation that a reasonable employer would realize that a
> reasonable person in the employee's position would be compelled to resign."

I'd imagine that's somewhat hard to argue as the CEO.

~~~
001sky
_Van Vleck Turner & Zaller LLP specializes in all aspects of California labor
and employment law._

It would be surpising for a law firm to publish something blatantly obtuse on
the subject.

More likely, the departure was negotiated with a non-disparagement clause and
a payout.

A legal action by the disgruntled employee would be terminal for mozilla's
mission and brand. The could not risk a trial--it would be worse publicity--so
they would settle. But this should have been anticipated and already settled,
however. This is why HR people are employed and why executive failures are
typically quiet.

On the merits, there is public evidence that The Mozilla Foundation chief
executive was publicly hostile to the departed executive of MoCo.Due to the
corporate structure of mozilla, the Foundation executive can be hostile to
MoCo ceo without being in a position of legal unsubordination.[+] Which
basically render's your point moot.

_________

[+] The foundation is the 100% owner (and thus in a Parent-child relation) of
MoCo.

------
matthewmacleod
He wasn't terminated, he resigned.

Anyway, can you imagine the ruckus that would ensue if Eich took Mozilla to
court?!

~~~
tomp
How would that damage him/his reputation any more than it's already damaged?

~~~
matthewmacleod
Well, at the moment, Eich is unpopular with some people because he supported a
cause they really didn't agree with, and because his failure to deal with the
fallout risked causing harm to Mozilla.

If he actively took steps which caused more damage in the respect, I think
it's fair to say that he wouldn't come out of it well.

------
shalmanese
Both Mozilla and Eich publicly claim it was a true resignation and not a
constructive dismissal: [https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-
resignat...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/04/05/faq-on-ceo-resignation/)
[https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-
mission/](https://brendaneich.com/2014/04/the-next-mission/)

------
Angostura
The article assumes he was terminated. Is there good evidence to think this?

~~~
gojomo
In such situations, it's impossible to tell whether it's a forced resignation
or not, unless the people who really know (the board and CEO) want to talk
about it.

Note that labor law sometimes treats even explicit resignations as equivalent
to dismissal - "constructive termination" \- when pressured by a intolerable
situation:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal#United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_dismissal#United_States_law)

However, the relationship between a board and CEO, and the power and
discretion of the CEO, is quite different than the situation of most
employees, so a lot of the same worker-protection logic would not likely
apply.

So I find this an interesting item about how California law is so explicitly
protective of political participation by general employees... but not likely a
cause for action in the Eich situation.

------
valberg
The beginning of this blog post screams that the author doesn't care about
facts.

"Mozilla (the maker of the Firefox search engine)"

Really?

------
ojbyrne
The article itself says he resigned. Probably with a nice fat golden parachute
in return for waiving any rights to litigation.

~~~
trhway
> a nice fat golden parachute

best ROI on a 1K spent 5 years ago :)

In serious, it sounds and looks like a witch hunt, which i happily have added
my [anonymous] voice to.

------
Igglyboo
Didn't he resign though?

~~~
cpwright
It is also possible they told him that if he didn't resign, he would be
terminated.

From the article, "No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce
or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss
of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any
particular course or line of political action or political activity."

Unless he wants to make a mess for Mozilla (and I don't think it sounds like
he does), we'll probably never know what really happened.

------
walshemj
In that case where are all the successful court cases for the Union members
sacked for trying to organize in walmart etc?

------
yuhong
Personally it would be interesting to sue OKCupid for promting the boycott to
compel Mozilla to violate employment laws.

