Law Suit of Sexual Harassment Faced by Google
Added on 2023-06-05
11 Pages2421 Words387 Views
Leadership Management
|
|
|
Running head: LAW SUIT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FACED BY GOOGLE
LAW SUIT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FACED BY GOOGLE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
LAW SUIT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FACED BY GOOGLE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
1LAW SUIT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FACED BY GOOGLE
Sexual harassment is a common affair faced by working women in any organization
irrespective of whether it is big or small (Crain and Matheny 2018). It was reported by The
Australian Human Rights Commission that out of five at least one women experiences sexual
harassment at some point of time in the workplace (Human rights commission 2018). Many
industries faces legal suits because of women raising their voices against male-dominated
workforces- sexual abuse and pay discrimination being the two important factors of such
breakout of outrage of women. The tech sector already subjected to a squall of lawsuits,
and Google in particular is found to be accused repeatedly of such sexual harassments at
workplace (Hlavka 2014). In the following paragraphs it is discussed that besides being suited
for the lower pay case related to pay discrimination on equal work, how a new suit alleged
Google of having an unhealthy presence of bro-culture involved in sexual harassments, even
physical violence against a female engineer Loretta Lee which affected her career. The ethical
issues that came up and how it was dealt or was necessary to be dealt are also discussed below.
California courts have given permission to female Google employees to proceed with two
major lawsuits with charges of sexual harassment and pay inequality, which in the opinion of
attorneys related to civil rights has the capability of uncovering discrimination in a wide scale
(Hill, Madden and Ezpeleta 2016). A judge belonging to San Francisco has given approval to
a class-action complaint alleging that Google will have to respond in publicly manner claiming
that many women employees have not been given proper compensation (Schultz 2018). Besides
this, another big allegation came is of sexual harassment of a former female engineer.
Loretta Lee, the victimized female engineer served Google from year 2008 until she was
terminated on February, 2016. Loretta claimed in the superior country court, Santa Clara that the
company did not take prompt action after she reported of being sexually harassed and a pray of
Sexual harassment is a common affair faced by working women in any organization
irrespective of whether it is big or small (Crain and Matheny 2018). It was reported by The
Australian Human Rights Commission that out of five at least one women experiences sexual
harassment at some point of time in the workplace (Human rights commission 2018). Many
industries faces legal suits because of women raising their voices against male-dominated
workforces- sexual abuse and pay discrimination being the two important factors of such
breakout of outrage of women. The tech sector already subjected to a squall of lawsuits,
and Google in particular is found to be accused repeatedly of such sexual harassments at
workplace (Hlavka 2014). In the following paragraphs it is discussed that besides being suited
for the lower pay case related to pay discrimination on equal work, how a new suit alleged
Google of having an unhealthy presence of bro-culture involved in sexual harassments, even
physical violence against a female engineer Loretta Lee which affected her career. The ethical
issues that came up and how it was dealt or was necessary to be dealt are also discussed below.
California courts have given permission to female Google employees to proceed with two
major lawsuits with charges of sexual harassment and pay inequality, which in the opinion of
attorneys related to civil rights has the capability of uncovering discrimination in a wide scale
(Hill, Madden and Ezpeleta 2016). A judge belonging to San Francisco has given approval to
a class-action complaint alleging that Google will have to respond in publicly manner claiming
that many women employees have not been given proper compensation (Schultz 2018). Besides
this, another big allegation came is of sexual harassment of a former female engineer.
Loretta Lee, the victimized female engineer served Google from year 2008 until she was
terminated on February, 2016. Loretta claimed in the superior country court, Santa Clara that the
company did not take prompt action after she reported of being sexually harassed and a pray of
2LAW SUIT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FACED BY GOOGLE
nasty gender discrimination. She also accused Google of wrongful termination. This separate
case is centered on allegation that a bro-culture caused daily sexual harassment of the female
software engineer .It is also now moving ahead as a class action, which is likely to put Google
under pressure for addressing allegations that are related to sexual misconduct or harassment
allegations in open court and disallowing private arbitration (Carr 2018). In words of Loretta
Lee, she opined of being subjected to constant licentious comments, physical violence along
with escapades. Loretta also claimed that her drinks were also surreptitiously contaminated with
alcohol or any drug.
In one occasion in a holiday party she got slapped by her male co-worker while
intoxicated. She received disturbing and humiliating messages from one of her co-worker who
approached for a horizontal hug from Loretta and was also faced with nerf (a type of foam
rubber used to make toys and sports equipment) gun shots. The utmost humiliation and physical
violence she faced was an occasion that was highlighted in the lawsuit which reflected that a
male co-worker was found hiding himself under Loretta’s desk. After being caught hiding, when
he had a realization of being discovered he ostensibly shouted that Lee will never be able to
know what that male co-worker was doing. Surprisingly, Lee was never acquainted with that co-
worker nor she had any conversation with him before. As Loretta was continuously subjected to
such harassments, this incident terrified her of the thought that he may have fixed or installed
any camera or similar other recording devices beneath her desk. In the words of lawsuit, the
incident that Loretta faced with the co-worker daunted her badly.
When the complaint was eventually made by Loretta Lee, she claimed that her co-
workers counter attacked her by continuous refusal of her code approval. This retaliation
nasty gender discrimination. She also accused Google of wrongful termination. This separate
case is centered on allegation that a bro-culture caused daily sexual harassment of the female
software engineer .It is also now moving ahead as a class action, which is likely to put Google
under pressure for addressing allegations that are related to sexual misconduct or harassment
allegations in open court and disallowing private arbitration (Carr 2018). In words of Loretta
Lee, she opined of being subjected to constant licentious comments, physical violence along
with escapades. Loretta also claimed that her drinks were also surreptitiously contaminated with
alcohol or any drug.
In one occasion in a holiday party she got slapped by her male co-worker while
intoxicated. She received disturbing and humiliating messages from one of her co-worker who
approached for a horizontal hug from Loretta and was also faced with nerf (a type of foam
rubber used to make toys and sports equipment) gun shots. The utmost humiliation and physical
violence she faced was an occasion that was highlighted in the lawsuit which reflected that a
male co-worker was found hiding himself under Loretta’s desk. After being caught hiding, when
he had a realization of being discovered he ostensibly shouted that Lee will never be able to
know what that male co-worker was doing. Surprisingly, Lee was never acquainted with that co-
worker nor she had any conversation with him before. As Loretta was continuously subjected to
such harassments, this incident terrified her of the thought that he may have fixed or installed
any camera or similar other recording devices beneath her desk. In the words of lawsuit, the
incident that Loretta faced with the co-worker daunted her badly.
When the complaint was eventually made by Loretta Lee, she claimed that her co-
workers counter attacked her by continuous refusal of her code approval. This retaliation
3LAW SUIT OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT FACED BY GOOGLE
ultimately resulted in a poor performance of Loretta Lee and caused termination of her
employment in the year 2016.
A Google spokesperson, Ty Sheppard, presented a statement that they take prompt
actions when violations are noticed. Even this action includes terminating an employee from the
company. In his words, Google have in place strong policies for dealing with harassment in the
workplace and each and every complaints are reviewed with utmost sincerity. In the words of
Lee, company did not pay heed to her repeated reports regarding sexual harassment, physical
violence, and discrimination. This puts a big question mark on the transparency of company’s
corporate governance. The actions of co-workers of Loretta especially male co-workers were not
being taken seriously and was not investigated properly. Even Loretta got terminated from her
employment which also did not have any proper investigation of the reasons behind her poor
performance, also portrays the willingly ignoring of her reports to protect the company image.
Google made a point in a court filing that Loretta should resolve this case of sexual harassment
and physical violence in private arbitration (Massoud 2014). This tactic however had to face
counter action significantly because of the rise of #MeToo movement (Zarkov and Davis 2018).
Arbitration clauses puts a barrier to suit any company in terms of law and present the case
to the court (Estlund 2017). This arbitration prevents the sexual misconduct or harassment and
gender discrimination victims, and are pressurized to agree to resolve the disputes behind the
closed doors. Often settlement is also done agreements that are not acknowledged properly. The
tacticsof arbitration is effective in silencing the victims and the serious offenders can avoid
severe consequences through this (Resnik 2014).
Richard Hoyer, Loretta’s attorney, stated that the women victims usually have to bear a
reduction of two-third in average recoveries when they unwillingly have to participate in
ultimately resulted in a poor performance of Loretta Lee and caused termination of her
employment in the year 2016.
A Google spokesperson, Ty Sheppard, presented a statement that they take prompt
actions when violations are noticed. Even this action includes terminating an employee from the
company. In his words, Google have in place strong policies for dealing with harassment in the
workplace and each and every complaints are reviewed with utmost sincerity. In the words of
Lee, company did not pay heed to her repeated reports regarding sexual harassment, physical
violence, and discrimination. This puts a big question mark on the transparency of company’s
corporate governance. The actions of co-workers of Loretta especially male co-workers were not
being taken seriously and was not investigated properly. Even Loretta got terminated from her
employment which also did not have any proper investigation of the reasons behind her poor
performance, also portrays the willingly ignoring of her reports to protect the company image.
Google made a point in a court filing that Loretta should resolve this case of sexual harassment
and physical violence in private arbitration (Massoud 2014). This tactic however had to face
counter action significantly because of the rise of #MeToo movement (Zarkov and Davis 2018).
Arbitration clauses puts a barrier to suit any company in terms of law and present the case
to the court (Estlund 2017). This arbitration prevents the sexual misconduct or harassment and
gender discrimination victims, and are pressurized to agree to resolve the disputes behind the
closed doors. Often settlement is also done agreements that are not acknowledged properly. The
tacticsof arbitration is effective in silencing the victims and the serious offenders can avoid
severe consequences through this (Resnik 2014).
Richard Hoyer, Loretta’s attorney, stated that the women victims usually have to bear a
reduction of two-third in average recoveries when they unwillingly have to participate in
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents
Evaluation of Cantor Fitzgerald Lawsuitlg...
|13
|2372
|60
Wrongful Termination and Causes of Actionlg...
|6
|1623
|100
Discrimination at Workplace: A Global Issue for Womenlg...
|11
|2326
|94
Age Discrimination in Employment Actlg...
|10
|2436
|13