This is going to get complicated, and probably nasty. The interests of Uber and Levandowski no longer align. That's not unusual, although it usually comes up more in criminal cases.
Amusingly, Google's employment contract, which specifies binding arbitration for employee-employer disputes, may have backfired on Google. Google did take Levandowski to arbitration. But Google can't bind Uber via their employee arbitration contract. So now Google is suing Uber, and Uber and Levandowski are arguing that Google can't sue because it insisted on arbitration in the employment contract.
> Amusingly, Google's employment contract, which specifies binding arbitration for employee-employer disputes
Sorry, does this also apply to ex-employees? Or did they go to arbitration _before_ he quit, implying that they had an inkling of the theft even then?...
Amusingly, Google's employment contract, which specifies binding arbitration for employee-employer disputes, may have backfired on Google. Google did take Levandowski to arbitration. But Google can't bind Uber via their employee arbitration contract. So now Google is suing Uber, and Uber and Levandowski are arguing that Google can't sue because it insisted on arbitration in the employment contract.