Google paid Andy Rubin a $90 million 'exit package' while covering up a sexual misconduct claim

[RavenSky]

Google gave Andy Rubin, the creator of Android mobile software, a hero’s farewell when he left the company in October 2014...

What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode. Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible, said the people, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing confidentiality agreements. Mr. Rubin was notified, they said, and Mr. Page asked for his resignation.

Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html

On one level, this is still far too typical... they basically rewarded him (and covered for him) in spite of a sexual harassment claim that they found credible enough to force his resignation over. This is the "good old boys club" in action... heaven forbid his future prospects be damaged in any way because of HIS OWN ACTIONS.

On the other hand:

Google said that it had fired 48 people over sexual harassment accusations over the past two years, and that none had received an exit package. One of the executives whom Alphabet continued employing after he was accused of harassment resigned on Tuesday and did not obtain an exit package

So basically Google's defense is that it's not the "good old boys club" any more. It's the "good old RICH boys club".

Middle managers beware - your sexual harassment will no longer be tolerated. Rich CEO's? You still get a pass.

Progress?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well ... baby steps?

An argument can be made that in the pre-Weinstein days, a company could have made the analysis that firing someone and denying him an exit package for something as trivial as raping a female employee wouldn't have played out well for the company from a PR point of view and could have exposed them to serious legal jeopardy in a wrongful termination lawsuit.

At least they got rid of him over it. From a 2014 perspective, that probably puts them way ahead of the curve.

 

[Underseer]

Google gave Andy Rubin, the creator of Android mobile software, a hero’s farewell when he left the company in October 2014...

What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode. Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible, said the people, who spoke on the condition that they not be named, citing confidentiality agreements. Mr. Rubin was notified, they said, and Mr. Page asked for his resignation.

Google could have fired Mr. Rubin and paid him little to nothing on the way out. Instead, the company handed him a $90 million exit package, paid in installments of about $2 million a month for four years

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/google-sexual-harassment-andy-rubin.html

On one level, this is still far too typical... they basically rewarded him (and covered for him) in spite of a sexual harassment claim that they found credible enough to force his resignation over. This is the "good old boys club" in action... heaven forbid his future prospects be damaged in any way because of HIS OWN ACTIONS.

On the other hand:

Google said that it had fired 48 people over sexual harassment accusations over the past two years, and that none had received an exit package. One of the executives whom Alphabet continued employing after he was accused of harassment resigned on Tuesday and did not obtain an exit package

So basically Google's defense is that it's not the "good old boys club" any more. It's the "good old RICH boys club".

Middle managers beware - your sexual harassment will no longer be tolerated. Rich CEO's? You still get a pass.

Progress?

[conservolibertarian]How dare they fire him for that?

Just in case his feelings were hurt, we should reward mister Rubin with a seat on the Supreme Court immediately!

Ninety million dollars is not enough to make up for their horrible crime against mister Rubin. Google ought to be ashamed for coddling feminazis and persecuting innocent men!

Unless he was Hispanic. Or gay or transgendered. Then we should ethnically cleanse all Hispanics and/or gays and/or transgendered people in case the rest of them are also molesters of some kind. We don't want a bunch of perverts infesting and corrupting society, after all! [/conservolibertarian]

 

[TSwizzle]

What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode.

What on earth is going on here ? This is very flimsy.

 

[dismal]

So basically Google's defense is that it's not the "good old boys club" any more. It's the "good old RICH boys club".

Middle managers beware - your sexual harassment will no longer be tolerated. Rich CEO's? You still get a pass.

Progress?

In my experience companies prefer not to give large severance packages to anyone, period. My guess would be Rubin had a burdensome employment agreement he obtained when he agreed to sell his company to google that required more severance than one would pay a middle manager with no employment agreement. I hope you won't allow this sort of reality to intrude upon your preferred narrative.

 

[starwater]

What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode.

What on earth is going on here ? This is very flimsy.

I agree this is pretty weird if they were having an affair.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode.

What on earth is going on here ? This is very flimsy.

I agree this is pretty weird if they were having an affair.

Why? Having an existing sexual relationship with someone doesn't mean that you can't coerce them into unwanted sex. If they were having an affair but she wasn't in the mood on that one particular occasion and he used his position as her boss to demand that she comply, then he's a rapist.

 

[dismal]

What Google did not make public was that an employee had accused Mr. Rubin of sexual misconduct. The woman, with whom Mr. Rubin had been having an extramarital relationship, said he coerced her into performing oral sex in a hotel room in 2013, according to two company executives with knowledge of the episode.

What on earth is going on here ? This is very flimsy.

I agree this is pretty weird if they were having an affair.

Well, but there's this too:

Google investigated and concluded her claim was credible

They had a spycam or multiple witnesses, I figure.

 

[starwater]

If Google said it was credible - there is more to the story than was publicized.

 

[dismal]

If Google said it was credible - there is more to the story than was publicized.

Or less. "Google" did not say this. "people" who can't be named because they are speaking in breach of confidentiality agreements reportedly said this.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If Google said it was credible - there is more to the story than was publicized.

Or less. "Google" did not say this. "people" who can't be named because they are speaking in breach of confidentiality agreements reportedly said this.

Ya, but are those people Democrats or Republicans? We can't make decisions about how credible they are without knowing how believing or disbelieving them will reinforce our partisan political positions.