Damore's Claim Men Have Higher IQs 'Discriminatory,' 'Constituted Sexual Harassment,' Labor Board RulesChris Menahan
Feb. 17, 2018
Lib Freaks Out After Virtue Signalling Poll Backfires
'Please Stop Pretending You're A Rebel!' Coulter Mocks The Resistance For Being 'Lockstep With Corporate America'
Christian Refugee Returns to Syria: 'I Was Scared When I Saw How Many Refugees Openly Pledged to ISIS'
Parkland Students Rally in Israel and Dubai to Demand Gun Control in America
UK: Man Found Guilty Of A Hate Crime For 'Offensive' Joke
The US National Labor Relations Board's Jayme Sophir rejected James Damore's labor complaint because his claims about "men's prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution" and "women's heightened neuroticism" were "discriminatory" and "constituted sexual harassment."
Sophir, who is the NLRB's Associate General Counsel in the Division of Advice, attacked Damore for trying to "cloak" his comments "with 'scientific' references and analysis" and said Google did not violate labor laws by firing him over his diversity manifesto, which she said was "so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected."
The NLRB's memo was dated in January but only released yesterday.
Here's the most relevant portion [Emphasis added]:
The Charging Party’s use of stereotypes based on purported biological differences between women and men should not be treated differently than the types of conduct the Board found unprotected in these cases. Statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding effort to cloak comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers. Moreover, those statements were likely to cause serious dissension and disruption in the workplace. Indeed, the memorandum did cause extreme discord, which the Charging Party exacerbated by deliberately expanding its audience. Numerous employees complained to the Employer that the memorandum was discriminatory against women, deeply offensive, and made them feel unsafe at work. Moreover, the Charging Party reasonably should have known that the memorandum would likely be disseminated further, even beyond the workplace. Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Party’s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected.Science now takes a backseat to hurt feelings.
Follow InformationLiberation on Twitter, Facebook and Gab.