Black, Deaf Google Worker who was Touted as Diversity Success Story Sues Tech Giant for Discrimination

[Turd Fergusen]

A black, deaf Google employee – who had been celebrated at corporate events and on social media as a success story for the search giant’s inclusive workplace – has accused the company of discrimination based on her disability and race.

In an explosive lawsuit filed in the US Northern District of California, Jalon Hall — the first and only black, deaf hire at Google, according to Wired — slammed Google for limiting her access to sign-language interpreters months after starting the job.

In the complaint, the worker painted Google’s management environment as hostile and racially charged.

She cited Google’s manager at the company’s machine-learning research program calling her an “aggressive black deaf woman” and advising her to “keep her mouth shut and take a sales role”.

Google also excluded her from roundtable discussions and passed her over for promotion due to “inaccurate evaluation” after three years, according to the suit.

Google recruiters promised Hall, who joined Google as a content moderator in 2020, that sign language interpreters would be provided “and can be fully accommodated,” Wired reported.

Months later, Hall was assigned to enforce YouTube’s child safety regulations, but managers refused interpreters to assist Hall in reviewing the content, according to Wired.

Reportedly, the company worried about exposing contractors to graphic imagery and confidentiality concerns, despite US interpreters adhering to a code of conduct that includes standards for confidentiality.

Deprived of her interpreter, Hall seldom reached the quota of 75 videos that each moderator was required to review within an eight-hour workday. Frequently, she would watch an entire video, sometimes exceeding an hour, before realizing she couldn’t adequately assess its content.

“I felt a sense of humiliation, recognizing that my career wasn’t progressing,” she told Wired.

Full Article

Black, deaf Google worker who was touted as diversity success story sues tech giant for discrimination

She cited Google’s manager at the company’s machine-learning research program calling her an “aggressive black deaf woman” and advising her to “keep her mouth shut and take a sales role…

nypost.com

 

[BuffettGirl]

I have zero problems with her suing, in fact I think she should sue. But why can't she just be a hearing impaired person? Why does she have to be a BLACK, deaf person? Like who's cashing in on the descriptors here?

 

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

"Reportedly, the company worried about exposing contractors to graphic imagery ..."

Then they don't take those assignments. They exposed her to it, what's the difference?

"....and confidentiality concerns, despite US interpreters adhering to a code of conduct that includes standards for confidentiality."

My husband's internalist at the hospital he frequented was deaf and the interpreter was with him when needed, and that's legally confidential information. That's standard for that profession, they're exposed to private information continuously.

"She cited Google’s manager at the company’s machine-learning research program calling her an “aggressive black deaf woman” and advising her to “keep her mouth shut and take a sales role”."

I think the manager she's talking about, who said this, is a Black female.
( The Wired article. It's a lot more detailed and convincing. Google didn't think this out at all.)

 

[Josh P]

She'll get promoted to remote working for long enough for this to blow over, then canned.

 

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

She'll get promoted to remote working for long enough for this to blow over, then canned.

Probably.

What she describes, to me, doesn't sound or feel like "discrimination", it seems more like a breach of contract issue.
She describes an occurrence of a teletalk where recording was only triggered by voice, so the visual of the signing wasn't available at the conclusion.
That's an equipment and capability deficit, NOT discrimination. It simply wasn't thought of, and they started looking for a fix.
Nearly every example is similar.

A more seasoned workforce person might have seized this opportunity to create and occupy a new position to HELP Google become better equipped to employ the Deaf.
She's missing an opportunity for career advancement by taking a leadership role in this and developing a workplace that could be an example throughout the industry to benefit the Deaf community.

I don't think she's doing the best or the right thing.

 

[Josh P]

Probably.

What she describes, to me, doesn't sound or feel like "discrimination", it seems more like a breach of contract issue.
She describes an occurrence of a teletalk where recording was only triggered by voice, so the visual of the signing wasn't available at the conclusion.
That's an equipment and capability deficit, NOT discrimination. It simply wasn't thought of, and they started looking for a fix.
Nearly every example is similar.

A more seasoned workforce person might have seized this opportunity to create and occupy a new position to HELP Google become better equipped to employ the Deaf.
She's missing an opportunity for career advancement by taking a leadership role in this and developing a workplace that could be an example throughout the industry to benefit the Deaf community.

I don't think she's doing the best or the right thing.

I agree, she will be viewed as a toxic asset anywhere she goes. I do feel she wasn't given the tools and resources to succeed at her job, but there are other options to get them.

 

[Blunderbuss Firozabad]

I agree, she will be viewed as a toxic asset anywhere she goes. I do feel she wasn't given the tools and resources to succeed at her job, but there are other options to get them.

She was recruited so enthusiastically I can understand why she would have the impression that this big company would have any deficiencies already solved, that she was stepping into a workplace that was prepared for her, a sort of turnkey job.
But that's still not discrimination, just poor management.

I took a job as manager of a franchise and everything appeared to be just right, assurances that it all ran smoothly, hard working employees in place.
However, the precedent had been set that it was acceptable for employees to call-off for work for any reason and when they did, and someone ALWAYS did, I'd have to replace them in the field.

I was in the office 1 day out of 10 from the get-go. I couldn't do my job, but thats wasn't discrimination.

Discrimination is intentional, it doesn't fit this well.
This about sloppy and unprepared management, inadequate equipment, broken promises about support. She deserved better, but it's a fantasy that institutions are well oiled machines, every eventuality thought of, tweaked, and everyone is up to date.
The people that were making the promises and accommodations weren't Deaf.

 

[CancerMan]

I have zero problems with her suing, in fact I think she should sue. But why can't she just be a hearing impaired person? Why does she have to be a BLACK, deaf person? Like who's cashing in on the descriptors here?

Some people are just entirely different level of unfortunate