James Damore is preparing to sue Google, his attorney wants more employees to come forward

James Damore, the Google employee who was fired earlier this month after writing a memo critical of the company’s progressive culture, is planning to sue his former employer. Business Insider reports he is now being represented by a civil rights attorney known for involvement with the Republican Party:

[Harmeet ] Dhillon’s confirmed she is representing Damore to Business Insider. She said her firm is currently gathering facts about his case, but no lawsuit has been filed yet…

A national committeewoman for the California Republican party, Dhilon was in the national spotlight when she delivered a Sikh prayer during the 2016 Republican National Convention. She also served as the vice chair of the California Republican party.

Hiring a woman attorney is clearly the smart way to go in a case where Google claims the firing was about “perpetuating gender stereotypes.” Dhillon’s firm is also asking other Google employees to come forward with similar complaints. A blog post on the firm’s website reads in part:

Have you been:

  • Discriminated against at Google based on your political views;
  • Been written up for “un-Googly conduct” for refusing to comply with the political orthodoxy at the company;
  • Retaliated against for complaining about employment discrimination at Google;
  • Defamed/slandered/smeared/blacklisted at Google for your political views, or views about affirmative action at Google; or
  • Punished for blowing the whistle on illegal employment practices at Google?

If so, our firm is interested in hearing from you, both on a fact-gathering basis and for purposes of potential legal representation.

Dhillon recently filed a lawsuit on behalf of college Republicans at Berkeley after the school offered Ann Coulter an unfavorable time to speak during the so-called “dead week” when students are preparing for finals. In response, the school argued it was placing reasonable restrictions on speech because of genuine security threats. Berkeley claimed the threat of violence, not opposition to a particular viewpoint, was what motivated their decision making. As I argued here, the fact that violence was only being threatened by progressives against conservative speakers and not the other way around resulted in a de facto Heckler’s veto on conservative speech.

Here’s a Fox News interview with Dhillon about the Berkeley lawsuit: