Simplified: He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women). There was no way the NLRB was going to find that to be protected action.
The ramifications if they had would be that if someone creates a discriminatory workplace a company could be sued by both the victim and the violator. Under such a rule, both people's rights would be 'violated'. The point of rights is to protect you, its not to enable you to violate the rights of others.
> He actively advocated for discrimination against a protected class (women).
Can you pull out a specific line from the memo that "actively advocates for discrimination"? I've read it a few times, and I just see him presenting an alternate explanation for the gender gap in tech beyond "sexism". He then goes on to argue that, in light of this alternate explanation, current approaches to narrow the gap may be ineffective. He finally presents some alternative approaches that he thinks might do a better job of closing the gap.
He was fired because his premise (gender gap might not be caused by sexism) is not a thought you're allowed to have.
>I find it funny that you can't discuss factual things that relate to your company's decisions and plans with your coworkers in your workplace.
Especially when they ask for your feedback. Actually perhaps there is an actionable error on the part of Google - did Damore have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality? Why did Google let it be disseminated publicly by other Google employees, heheh?
You can see just by that link that the link itself is confused. It begins:
> [A Protected Class is] A group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from employment discrimination on the basis of that characteristic.
You'll immediately notice that "women" are a group of people with a common characteristic (sex) who are legally protected etc etc. "Sex", despite being listed further down the page as a "protected class", does not meet the definition, as sex is not a group of people. Rather, it is a characteristic which federal law protects.
The ramifications if they had would be that if someone creates a discriminatory workplace a company could be sued by both the victim and the violator. Under such a rule, both people's rights would be 'violated'. The point of rights is to protect you, its not to enable you to violate the rights of others.