[ LOGIN ] [ SIGN UP ]

[ Report ]

James Bara VS. Google
Charge: Being a subject for a gender and religious discrimination

As I was working for Google in the Atlanta office, a female transgender employee joined my group. My boss, a woman named Pam Sohn, made inappropriate comments about this woman, and ridiculed her sexual preference. I complained to Sohn regarding those comments and she turned on me and began to treat me, and the other men in the office unfairly. She also made inappropriate comments directed towards me about witches and my religions that made me feel uncomfortable.


Case Status: CLOSED Case Opened By: Freak on November 03, 2009 Tags: Google Sexual Discrimination Category: Social and Workplace

Ruled on
November 10 2009

Guilty: 71

Not Guilty: 42

Google was found
Guilty

CASE SUMMARY

Votings:

Guilty: 71

Not Guilty: 42

Arguments:

Prosecution Arguments: 2

Defense Arguments: 3

Total Arguments Strength:

Prosecution: 4

Defense: 2

CASE HIGHLIGHTS

PROSECUTION

Most Active Member of the Prosecution:

Freak
1 Arguments

Stronget Prosecution Argument: (Strength: 3)

An employee should not make any comments regarding a co-worker sexual identity or religious affiliation. The employer should not allow this kind of behavior in the office.

Posted by Freak

DEFENSE

Most Active Member of the Defense:

Dave Lori
1 Arguments

Stronget Defense Argument: (Strength: 2)

Don't be confused -- the incident with the transgender employee is not relevant in this case. James picked a fight with his boss after overhearing a comment about someone else and then accused her of not just religious intolerance but also bias against men! Which is it? Something's not right here -- does anyone think we're getting the whole story if when James complained to his boss she turned on an entire gender? I think that the transgender story is an attempt to curry sympathy for a person not a party to that conflict, and that James accused Pam of being a bad person and sued when she defended herself. The story just doesn't fit together well enough to award James financial damages. A suit by the actually aggrieved transgender person would be a different story....

Posted by Pete

CASE ARGUMENTS

PROSECUTION

Sort By: Newest | Strongest | Most Opposed To

[ Report ]

Given that not only the comments concerning the trans-gender person occurred, but that when pointing out such improper comments in an unofficial manner, which is very common and actually would be considered a courtesy, this person's religion is attacked, there is now ample proof that this manager is obviously a bigot. Perhaps the plaintiff could have gone to higher officials in the company, however, most corporate environments, while saying the encourage it, actively discourage it, and those who do so are either held back, disciplined for some made up offense, or outright terminated. In addition, there is no legal requirement to advance such a thing to upper management.

Posted by Attackgypsy 9 Months ago.

This Argument is:

Strength:

Opposing Arguments:

(0)

[ Report ]

An employee should not make any comments regarding a co-worker sexual identity or religious affiliation. The employer should not allow this kind of behavior in the office.

Posted by Freak 9 Months ago.

This Argument is:

Strength:

Opposing Arguments:

(0)

DEFENSE

Sort By: Newest | Strongest | Most Opposed To

[ Report ]

I don't think there is much merit to this case - as shown so far. The gender and religious accusations stated are serious matters, but seem very one-sided. Wouldn't a large corporation have multiple internal investigations when an employee charges a boss of accusations like these? Wouldn't a large corporation like Google, that is so concerned about its image and reputation, have good reasons for terminating an employee after making these accusations? Where is the proof? Where is the documentation? Did anyone else hear the boss make these comments? It seems you can accuse someone of harassment, but how are we to know this actually happened without any proof? I'm with Pete on this one. There seems to be more to this case than is being shown so far.

Posted by Johnsmith 9 Months ago.

This Argument is:

Strength:

Opposing Arguments:

(0)

[ Report ]

Posted by Pete 9 Months ago.

This Argument is:

Strength:

Opposing Arguments:

(0)

[ Report ]

A workplace is a social environment where free speech is allowed. Unless damage is made, II do not see any place for this kind of lawsuit. It seems that the plaintiff moved on to a new job and all is well right now.

Posted by Dave Lori 9 Months ago.

This Argument is:

Strength:

Opposing Arguments:

(0)

| | |