Mediaboss Marketing

WASHINGTON There are only about 30,000 people in Iowas 82nd state House district, near Ottumwa, but Democrats are hailing a victory in a special election there Tuesday as another early indicator of a backlash against President Donald Trump that could fuel big wins in next years midterms.

The southeast Iowa district has been trending away from Democrats, voting for former President Barack Obama twice before breaking heavily for Trump last year, just like the entire state of Iowa. But Democrat Phil Miller, a veterinarian, carried the district with 54 percent of the vote Tuesday in a race to replace a Democrat who died in office.

Tonights victory in a district Trump won by 21 points just last fall is a testament to Democrats strength in deep red districts, and with Representative-elect Miller in the Iowa House were one step closer to regaining the chamber, said Jessica Post, the executive director of the Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the official legislative campaign arm for Democrats.

Related: Democrats Ready to War With Trump on Trade

Iowa's political mood is always watched closely, given the state's crucial role in the presidential primary process by holding the first-in-the-nation caucuses.

While Democrats have lost this years higher-profile congressional special elections, like the one in Georgia's 6th Congressional District, theyve had more success in state legislative races.

And party officials say what matters most in predicting future outcomes is not necessarily whether they win or lose, but the margins between the candidates and whether those suggest any kind of pattern.

In all types of races, whether winning and losing, Democrats have consistently over-performed their party's performance in earlier presidential elections by an average of 14 percentage points, according to a June analysis by FiveThirtyEight.

Democrats have not only wrested four seats from Republicans, but theyve also outperformed Democratic presidential numbers from just last fall in 24 out of 31 contested congressional and state legislative elections, wrote Carolyn Fiddler, a former DLCC official who is now an editor at the liberal Daily Kos blog.

Democrats recently won their first New Hampshire state Senate special election since 1984, and took a pair of conservative districts in Oklahoma, along with another one on Long Island, New York. They maintained control of the Delaware state Senate with a win there, and cheered other wins in Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

Republicans have won nearly as many special legislative special elections since Trumps inauguration, but most were in safer seats.

Democrats have been decimated in state legislatures, losing around 1,000 seats during Barack Obamas eight years in the White House. Republicans now have complete control of the capitol (the governor plus both chambers of the legislature) in 26 states, versus just six for Democrats.

Democrats hope to chip away at that in upcoming state elections in Washington, New Jersey and Virginia this fall.

See original here:
Early Iowa Tea Leaf Falls Against Trump - NBCNews.com

Mr. Cuomo reacted in stunned silence.

The pointed exchange, which has not previously been reported, captures the raw tensions around the fractured Democratic coalition in Albany that threaten to dog Mr. Cuomo as he looks to his 2018 re-election, and possibly beyond.

Dani Lever, a spokeswoman for the governor, played down the moment.

The comment you describe was not of particular note, said Ms. Lever, who was not at the meeting. Certainly no one took any offense because it was a friendly and positive meeting on all levels.

That is not how those in attendance reacted, describing it as profound moment in a fractious relationship.

Ms. Stewart-Cousins herself said in a statement, My comments were in the context of suburban representation there was no racial tension whatsoever; it was a good and productive meeting.

The issue of New Yorks divided government has attracted attention from national leaders, including Representative Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the House Democrats, and Representative Keith Ellison, the Democratic National Committee deputy chairman, who urged a united Democratic front against President Trump.

Theres this new awareness about what was formerly a rather insider parlor game, said State Senator Brad Hoylman, a Manhattan Democrat. The winds shifted on Nov. 8. The No. 1 concern I hear from my constituents on the street isnt Donald Trump. Its what the Senates going to do, and how the Democrats can win it back.

Democrats hold 32 of the 63 seats in the Senate, yet Republicans control the chamber. The mechanics and math of bringing Senate Democrats together are complex: Ms. Stewart-Cousins leads a group of 23 Democrats, while Mr. Klein leads the breakaway group of eight. The 32nd elected Democrat, Simcha Felder of Brooklyn, caucuses with the Republicans but has left the door open to rejoining the Democrats.

As Senator Kevin Parker, a Brooklyn Democrat, put it, How can you be one of the top Democrats in the country and not have resolved this in your own backyard?

The governor has built his reputation as a master manager and bipartisan deal maker, and the Republican-led Senate has prevented him from facing the politically precarious choice of vetoing or signing more liberal legislation that would inevitably emerge from a fully Democratic Legislature.

But as he looks to 2018 and a possible 2020 presidential bid, Mr. Cuomo must appeal to a restive Democratic electorate that is increasingly aware and unhappy that Republicans hold power in the State Senate during such polarized times.

The governor spent a lot of time and energy and successfully brought the two sides together in 2014, but the Democrats failed to win an overall majority, said Melissa DeRosa, the governors top aide. He is working very hard again to end the personal agendas and infighting that is causing the divide and unify the factions, which is more important than ever when our democratic values are under attack by the Trump administration.

In recent weeks, the state Democratic Party adopted a resolution to cut off party funds from the eight members of Mr. Kleins Independent Democratic Conference; New Yorks Democratic congressional delegation asked Mr. Cuomo behind closed doors for action during his recent visit to Washington; and, on a Manhattan street in July, an activist with a camera confronted Mr. Cuomo about his plans for the breakaway Democrats.

I can perform marriages, Mr. Cuomo said in the video, posted on YouTube, but I cant force them.

That has largely been Mr. Cuomos laissez-faire posture when it comes to the I.D.C., though many Democrats accuse him of tacitly supporting the arrangement.

Mr. Klein lauded the legislative achievements since the I.D.C.s inception in 2011, among them a higher minimum wage, paid family leave and legalization of gay marriage.

I think the entire political establishment has a lot to learn from the Independent Democratic Conference about getting things done, said Mr. Klein, whose district is drawn mostly from the Bronx, where he lives, and includes a sliver of Westchester.

He had only praise for Mr. Cuomo: I consider the governor a fantastic leader.

Mr. Klein and Ms. Stewart-Cousins, however, do not enjoy a warm relationship. I can count on a couple fingers how many times Ive spoken to Senator Cousins, Mr. Klein said.

Many Democrats believe Mr. Cuomo could broker an agreement between the warring Democratic factions, as he did during his last run for governor if it served him politically.

At this point, he is the solution, said Mr. Parker, the Democratic senator.

Behind the scenes, Mr. Cuomo has begun getting more involved, including arranging a dinner in Manhattan last week, a gathering that lasted more than two hours and was attended by only Mr. Cuomo, Ms. Stewart-Cousins and Mr. Klein, according to a person who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

The governor is a ferocious advocate when he chooses to be, said Bill Lipton, state director of the Working Families Party, which pushes Democrats to adopt more liberal positions. He has $25 million in the bank and hes the leader of the Democratic Party. Theres no question if he put his foot to the pedal here, he could have a decisive impact.

The closed-door confrontation with Ms. Stewart-Cousins highlighted another sensitive factor: race.

Mr. Cuomo has had an up-and-down history with New Yorks black political leadership dating to his 2002 primary challenge against H. Carl McCall, who was seeking to become the states first black governor. (Mr. Cuomo has since appointed Mr. McCall as board chairman for the State University of New York.) New York has never had a black woman lead a legislative chamber, and if Democrats could unite, Ms. Stewart-Cousins would be the first. (The Assembly currently has an African-American leader, Speaker Carl E. Heastie.)

In the Manhattan meeting last month, Mr. Cuomo went around the room to ask Ms. Stewart-Cousinss members if they were each willing to join with Mr. Kleins team to form a united Democratic front.

The question was, Are Democrats prepared to form a coalition with the I.D.C. to govern the Senate? and the answer was a resounding yes from every senator in the room, Mr. Hoylman recalled.

But Mr. Cuomo told them that Mr. Klein was still resistant. The meeting ended without resolution.

Read the rest here:
Tensions Flare as Cuomo Confronts Democratic Rift - New York Times

The merit reforms central premise that it would help American workers is false, insisted the editorial board of the New York Times, likely Lawrence Downes, adding:

Its true that an influx of workers can cause short-term disruptions to the labor market, but the impact on the wages of native workers over a period of 10 years or more is very small, according to a comprehensiveNational Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine reportpublished last year.

The National Academy of Sciences looked at the effect of immigration on the wages and employment of American workers, says the Akron Beacon Journal. It found the impact slight or zero.

Overall, the [National Academies] study found that immigration had no negative effects on wages in the long run, said TheHill.com.

But the National Academies study was very clear on page 171 of its September 22 report, titled The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration:

Immigrant labor accounts for 16.5 percent of the total number of hours worked in the United States, which...implies that the current stock of immigrants lowered [Americans] wages by 5.2 percent.

That 5.2 percent immigration tax caused by legal and illegal immigration adds up to $500 billion per year lost by employees because of the cheap-labor competition. The tax is the flip-side of what pro-immigration groups tout as the roughly $50 billion extra immigration surplus which is created by the extra immigrant workers.

The immigration tax is quietly slipped from employees pay-packets because workers compete wages down to get jobs in an economy where millions of Americans and immigrants both legal and illegal are either unemployed, underemployed or underpaid. The tax profits from cheap-labor are then redistributed upwards to employers and investors on Wall Street.

The merit reforms boost to wages justifies its title, Reforming AmericanImmigrationfor Strong Employment, or the RAISE act.

The NAS report also noted that governments transfer a huge amount of taxpayers funds to support poor immigrants. The aid payments are made because immigration has lowered full-time wages, and because companies can low-ball wages because they know government will also provide aid programs, such as food stamps. The taxpayers fiscal costs, according to data in the NAS report, range from $43 billion to $300 billion.

One of the reports co-authors, Harvard professor George Borjas, summarized the NAS report:

If we then take the reports estimates of thesurplus and the fiscalburden at face value, it is self-evident that the impact of immigration on the aggregate wealth of natives is, at best, a wash. Instead, the impact of immigration is distributional. Those who compete with immigrants are effectively sending billions andbillions of dollars annually to those who use immigrants.

But the NAS report hides this huge poor-to-rich immigration-tax redistribution under verbiage about an academic theory.

The theory says that investors, employers and employees perfectly, automatically, freely and constantly adjust their actions to match current incentives. This theory assumes that each advantage gained by one group is automatically cancelled out by reaction from the other groups and therefore, that any economic losses caused to employees by immigration would be brief and minor because employees would react instantly and perfectly.Heres the some of the jargon:

Theory predicts that immigration initially confers net economic benefits on the destination country economy while creating winners and losers among the native-born via changes in the wage structure and the return to capital. Resulting changes in factor prices increase the production of goods and services that use the type of labor that immigrants provide most intensively.

With time, the capital stock adjusts and eventually technology may respond as well, pushing up the demand for labor and hence wages toward their original levels. It bears noting that, if firms anticipate immigration and there is no lag in the response of capital and technology, the length of time elapsing between an immigration inflow and the long-run adjustment of the labor market could be very short. Either way, if the economy simply returns to a larger version of its pre-immigration state, with the same capital-labor ratio, there are no winners and losers among the native-born, but equally, no net benefit to them from immigration.

The pro-immigration majority of NAS authors then applied the theory to hide the 5.2 percent immigration tax:

However, it bears noting that it is problematic to apply the same static methodology used for small temporary inflows to measuring the impact of the entire population of immigrants, which has grown over the course of decades. Over such a long period of time, capital has had plenty of time to adjust, and so these estimates can at best be described as upper limits that exaggerate the real impact of immigration on native wages and overall incomes.

This theory not the studys data about the 5.2 percent immigration tax or the tax payments is used by establishment media to claim that there is no economic impact from the annual inflow of legal immigrant labor, which delivers roughly one new legal immigrant for every four young Americans who turn 18 each year.

For example, Newsweek and the New York Daily News both printed an op-ed by CATO open-borders advocate Alex Nowrasteh, where he used the theory to claim:

More fundamentally, immigration bears little blame for low wages. This point is not controversial among economists who study this issue. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) literature survey on the economic effects of immigration concluded that:

When measured over a period of 10 years or more, the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small. To the extent that negative impacts occur, they are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born workers who have not completed high schoolwho are often the closest substitutes for immigrant workers with low skills.

Immigrationslong-run relative wage impacton native-born American workers is close to zero. The only potential exception by education group is high school dropouts who might face more labor market competition from immigration that would produce a maximum relative decline of about 1.7 percent from 1990 to 2010.

In the New York Daily News, Nowrasteh claimed immigrations impact on wages is overstated. A recent National Academy of Sciences study found that the impact of immigration on the wages of native-born workers overall is very small.'

A widely reprinted article in The New York Times let a pro-immigration advocate make the claim: The story that when labor supplies go down, wages go up is a cartoon, said Michael A. Clemens, an economist at the Center for Global Development who has studied the end of the Mexican guest-worker program, which was known as the Bracero program.

But the immigration tax on wage-earners is widely recognized by economists and by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal, which recently wrote:

Every economist knows that employers can only raise wages as fast as productivity and profitability allow. If the cost of labor rises too much for a specific job, employers will simply cease providing the service or move production overseas. That means fewer jobs for Americans too The solution, as ever, is a legal immigration system that is generous with visas and flexible enough to meet the demands of a growing U.S. economy.

Even theNew York Times article which quoted Clemens shows how farmers hired high-wage Americans to manufacture tomato-picking machines once they could not hire low-wage, stoop-labor illegals:

WASHINGTON When the federal government banned the use of [cheap migrant] farmworkers from Mexico in 1964, Californias tomato growers did not enlist Americans to harvest the fragile crop. They replaced the lost workers with tomato-picking machines California farmers in the 1950s and early 60s relied on Mexican workers even though machines were already available. In 1964, 97 percent of California tomatoes were picked by hand By 1966, 90 percent of California tomatoeswere being picked by machines.

Many of the tomato-picking machines were manufactured byBlackwelder Manufacturing Co., located in Rio Vista, California.

Forty years later, much of the tomato-picking business is mechanized.

But some farmers in the United States, for example, in Florida, still use illegal immigrants instead of machinery. According to the Huffington Post:

More than1,200 peoplehave been freed from agricultural slavery rings in Florida during the last 10 to 15 years. Workers tell stories of brutal beatings,being shackled in chains at night, no regular pay for work, housing where 20 pickers share one mobile home and are each charged upwards of$200 per month in rent. Yes, per person. No shade in the fields, no breaks for meals,10 to 12 hour workdays, seven days a week. With financial obligations and no way to escape, many tomato field workers have found themselves modern day slaves.

Another New York Times article by columnist Eduardo Portercited another version of the migrant-tomato-pickers-vs.-American-machine-builders argument. He cited a study which found that manufacturing plants in regions of the United States that received lots of low-skill immigrants in the 1980s and 1990s weremuch slower to mechanizethan plants in low-immigration regions. Porter did not even try to explain his apparent claim that Americans wages grow by using less high-tech manufacturing gear.

Trumpsvery popularreformwill halve low-skilled immigration, while also inviting a smaller inflow of very skilled immigrants to help Americans grow the nations productivity and per-person wealth.

Under pre-Trump policies, the federal governmentannually imports1 million legal immigrants into the United States, just as 4 million young Americans turn 18. The annual inflow has kept Americans wages down, and has now created a country-sized population of roughly 40 million consumers.

The federal government also annually awards roughly 1.5 million temporary work permits to foreigners, grants temporary work visas to roughly 500,000 new contract workers, such as H-1B workers, and also largely ignores the resident population of eight million employed illegal immigrants.

The currentannual floodofforeign laborspikes profits and Wall Street valuesbycutting salariesfor manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. It also drives up real estate prices,widens wealth-gaps, reduceshigh-tech investmentand automation, increasesstate and local tax burdens, hurtskids schoolsandcollege education, and sidelinesat least 5 million marginalizedAmericansand their families.

See the original post:
NYT Hides Wage Gains in Donald Trump's Merit Immigration Reform - Breitbart News

Can the government ban the text of the First Amendment itself on municipal transit ads because free speech is too political for public display?

If this sounds like some ridiculous brain teaser, it should. But unfortunately its not. Its a core claim in a lawsuit we filed today challenging the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritys (WMATA) restrictions on controversial advertising.

The ACLU, ACLU of D.C., and ACLU of Virginia are teaming up to represent a diverse group of plaintiffs whose ads were all branded as too hot for transit: the ACLU itself; Carafem, a health care network that specializes in getting women access to birth control and medication abortion; People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA); and Milo Worldwide LLC the corporate entity of provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos.

To put it mildly, these plaintiffs have nothing in common politically. But together, they powerfully illustrate the indivisibility of the First Amendment. Our free speech rights rise and fall together whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above.

Lets start with the ACLU. Earlier this year, following President Trumps repeated commentary denigrating journalists and Muslims, the ACLU decided to remind everyone about that very first promise in the Bill of Rights: that Congress shall make no law interfering with our freedoms of speech and religion. As part of a broad advertising campaign, the ACLU erected ads in numerous places, featuring the text of the First Amendment. Not only in English, but in Spanish and Arabic, too to remind people that the Constitution is for everyone.

The ACLU inquired about placing our ads with WMATA, envisioning an inspirational reminder of our founding texts, with a trilingual twist, in the transit system of the nations capital. But it was not to be: Our ad was rejected because WMATAs advertising policies forbid, among many other things, advertisements intended to influence members of the public regarding an issue on which there are varying opinions or intended to influence public policy.

You dont have to be a First Amendment scholar to know that something about that stinks.

Our free speech rights rise and falltogether whether left, right, pro-choice, anti-choice, vegan, carnivore, or none of the above.

Lets start with the philosophical argument. WMATAs view is apparently that the litany of commercial advertisements it routinely displays involve no issues on which there are varying opinions. Beyond the obvious Coke-or-Pepsi jokes, theres a dark assumption in that rule: that we all buy commercial products thoughtlessly. Buy beer! (Dont think about alcoholism.) Buy a mink coat! (Dont think about the mink.) That is, WMATA sees varying opinions only when they relate to something it recognizes as controversial. And as the Supreme Court recently reminded us, the government violates the First Amendment when it allows only happy-talk.

And now to the practical. This is a policy so broad and vague that it permits WMATA to justify the ad hoc exclusion of just about anyone. And the broad set of plaintiffs in this case confirms that.

Despite the fact that Carafem provides only FDA-approved medications, its ad was deemed too controversial because it touched the third rail of abortion. Carafems proposed ad read simply: 10-week-after pill. For abortion up to 10 weeks. $450. Fast. Private. As we at the ACLU know all too well, as states continue to erect draconian barriers to the right to choose, information about and access to abortion care is more critical than ever. Yet Carafems ad was apparently rejected simply because some people think otherwise.

One of PETAs intended advertisements depicted a pig with accompanying text reading, Im ME, Not MEAT. See the Individual. Go Vegan. Despite the fact that WMATA routinely displays advertisements that encourage riders to eat animal-based foods, wear clothing made from animals, and attend circus performances, PETAs side of this public debate was the only one silenced by the government.

WMATAs advertising agency suggested that with some changes, ACLU and PETA might be able to get their advertisements accepted. Perhaps PETA could remove the Go Vegan slogan from its advertisement? But for the ACLU, Youll have to dramatically change your creative. In other words, as long as we dont try to make anyone think, we might get the right to speak.

That brings us to our final client: Milo Worldwide LLC. Its founder, Milo Yiannopoulos, trades on outrage: He brands feminism a cancer, he believes that transgender individuals have psychological problems, and he has compared Black Lives Matter activists to the KKK. The ACLU condemns many of the values he espouses (and he, of course, condemns many of the values the ACLU espouses).

Milo Worldwide submitted ads that displayed only Mr. Yiannopouloss face, an invitation to pre-order his new book, Dangerous, and one of four short quotations from different publications: The most hated man on the Internet from The Nation; The ultimate troll from Fusion; The Kanye West of Journalism from Red Alert Politics; and Internet Supervillain from Out Magazine. Unlike Mr. Yiannopoulos stock-in-trade, the ads themselves were innocuous, and self-evidently not an attempt to influence any opinion other than which book to buy.

WMATA appeared to be okay with that. It accepted the ads and displayed them in Metro stations and subway cars until riders began to complain about Mr. Yiannopoulos being allowed to advertise his book. Just 10 days after the ads went up, WMATA directed its agents to take them all down and issue a refund suddenly claiming that the ads violated the same policies it relied on to reject the ads from the ACLU, Carafem, and PETA.

The ideas espoused by each of these four plaintiffs are anathema to someone as is pretty much every human idea. By rejecting these ads and accepting ads from gambling casinos, military contractors, and internet sex apps, WMATA showed just how subjective its ban is. Even more frightening, however, WMATAs policy is an attempt to silence anyone who triestomakeyou think. Any one of these advertisements, had it passed WMATAs censor, would have been the subject of someones outraged call to WMATA.

So, to anyone whod be outraged to see Mr. Yiannopoulos advertisement please recognize that if he comes down, so do we all. The First Amendment doesnt, and shouldnt, tolerate that kind of impoverishment of our public conversation. Not even in the subway.

At the end of the day, its a real shame that WMATA didnt accept the ACLUs advertisement the agency could really have used that refresher on the First Amendment.

See the original post:
The First Amendment (Literally) Banned in D.C. | American Civil ... - ACLU (blog)

Xconomy San Francisco

Google software engineer James Damore confirmed to Bloomberg on Monday that Google fired him for circulating a lengthy memo on his views that women are biologically less suited to tech work than men.

His manifesto was spread through Googles internal communication channels over the weekend, and obtained by Gizmodo and other tech publications. Damore expressed his opinion that women are underrepresented in tech companies such as Google, not because of discrimination, but because, on average, women are naturally more inclined to concentrate on feelings rather than on ideas. Damore also professed his belief that women are more neurotic or prone to anxiety than men, as well as less competitive and more inclined to be collaborative.

Google acted quickly, firing Damore on grounds that his memo violated the companys code of conduct by propagating harmful gender stereotypes, according to the New York Times. Damore had criticized Google for its initiatives to promote diversity.

Damores ideas were roundly denounced by both women and men in the tech industry, including former Googler Yonatan Zunger, who is now at machine learning startup Humu. Zunger, an experienced engineer, said in a Medium post Saturday that traits Damore defines as female, such as empathy and the ability to collaborate, are the core traits which make someone successful at engineering.

But in the memo, Damore claims his views are shared by many fellow Googlers who have told him privately that theyre grateful to him for raising opinions they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired.

Its Damores claim that Google stifles dissent, in the memo he called Googles Ideological Echo Chamber, that may keep his ideas in the forefront of public debate. Signs are that he may sue Google, claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights, or of his rights under federal labor law.

If Damore challenges his firing on grounds that Google suppressed his free speech rights, hes unlikely to win, legal scholars say. But Damore may already have achieved part of his aims, in spades. His opinionsthough offensive to manyare now part of a public discussion in arenas much broader than Google internal memos.

Damores case has dragged Google into the ongoing political and cultural battle between right and left in the U.S.between conservative groups that resist diversity efforts, and employers such as universities that try to counter discrimination. This could turn out to be a bigger headache for Google (and potentially other companies) than an employment rights suit it may be likely to win.

David French, writing for the conservative magazine National Review, blasted Google for Damores firing. Of course Google did this, French wrote. Of course an increasingly radical progressive enclave cant handle thoughtful critiques of its ideological monoculture.

Google is a private company and has wide legal latitude to discipline its employees for their speech, but make no mistakethis is a direct assault on the American culture of free speech, French added.

Another writer forNational Review, Jim Geraghty, eagerly anticipates legal action by Damore. When does one employee holding an opinion contrary to another employees become harassment? My guess is that a lawsuit at Google is going to explore that question under the harsh glare of public scrutiny, Geraghty wrote.

Other conservative outlets, includingThe American Conservative and Breitbart,also jumped into the fray. Breitbart published a flurry of at least nine stories supporting Damores views.

On the other end of the political spectrum, The Guardians Owen Jones wrote under the headline, Googles sexist memo has provided the alt-right with a new martyr.

Jones wrote, Youre going to hear a lot about [Damore] in the coming weeks: hell probably be a star guest on alt-right shows and the rightwing lecture circuit, splashed on the front covers of conservative magazines, no doubt before a lucrative book deal about his martyrdom and what it says about the Liberal Big Brother Anti-White Man Thought Police.

The portrayals of Google as a standard-bearer for anti-discrimination policies, or a radical progressive enclave, can be dizzying, because Google has actually been trying to counter the impressionbased on its own workplace statisticsthat its hiring and promotion policies significantly disadvantage women and minority members.

If Damore files a lawsuit against Google for suppressing his views against equal opportunity measures, it might be heard even while the U.S. Department of Labor continues its investigation of a significant gender wage gap at Google.

Prior to his firing, Damore had already sought recourse by filing a complaint to the National Labor Relations Board, arguing that Google was trying to silence him, according to the New York Times.

Stanford University law professor Richard Thompson Ford, who specializes in anti-discrimination law and workplace rights, says Damore has a slight, though not non-existent, chance at winning a lawsuit against Google over his firing.

The First Amendment claim is not strong, Ford says.

Many people think the amendment gives them the right to free speech on the job, but thats a misreading Next Page

Bernadette Tansey is Xconomy's San Francisco Editor. You can reach her at btansey@xconomy.com.

More here:
The Fired Google Engineer, the First Amendment, and the Alt-Right - Xconomy