The false equivalence was deliberate!
This is one of those subtle things that can be problematic, we don't have a good moral calculus on where to draw the line. Slippery slope or reductio, your choice.
Large companies often run a simple financial thought experiment:
"How much liability does this expose us to (a.k.a. how much to make this go away -- hence the popularity of confidentiality clauses in settlements)" vs. "What is this person worth to us"
If we accept that he left Google before they forced him out, then (cynically) Google must have decided that the liability was greater than his value.
But when we consider this from the perspective of someone who has been abused at their place of employment, they may be facing a career change, PTSD, you name it. Both of the women that have written about their experiences at Uber describe stark psychological responses to their experiences - these can/will have lifelong impact. Does a track record of technological innovation excuse even one instance of that?
This is one of those subtle things that can be problematic, we don't have a good moral calculus on where to draw the line. Slippery slope or reductio, your choice.
Large companies often run a simple financial thought experiment:
"How much liability does this expose us to (a.k.a. how much to make this go away -- hence the popularity of confidentiality clauses in settlements)" vs. "What is this person worth to us"
If we accept that he left Google before they forced him out, then (cynically) Google must have decided that the liability was greater than his value.
But when we consider this from the perspective of someone who has been abused at their place of employment, they may be facing a career change, PTSD, you name it. Both of the women that have written about their experiences at Uber describe stark psychological responses to their experiences - these can/will have lifelong impact. Does a track record of technological innovation excuse even one instance of that?