>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, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.
this is respectable of Google imho. There is no need that the whole world knows the details about this 'performance'. A bit low of the New York Times. But of course, sex sells.
The "parachute" has nothing to do with the sexual harassment claim. I don't get why, even if Rubin were guilty, one should cancel the other. Should they ask back his salaries as well? Take his house?
'victim'? For me this term should be reserved for grave situations; what shall I say, what sometimes unfortunately now happens in Germany with knives maybe? The reward is for building Android. For such a successful platform the sum is more than justified, don't you think? In a way I feel Rubin is also a 'victim', Clinton didn't get fired back then.
Are you seriously saying that sexual coercion is justified by how successful your mobile OS is? Holy crap! Please don’t ever - and I mean please in the most violent way possible - come near my daughters.
I said that there are different degrees of 'victims' and that there is an over-use of 'victim'. I didn't speak about Rubin as I don't know the details and neither did I speak about justification.
(No need for personal attacks. Some friendliness would help not to split society/politics/discourse)
> 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, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.
This appears to be original research on behalf of the journalist, with no citation. What evidence do they have to support it? They don't even claim an anonymous source "with knowledge of the contract".
>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, said two people with knowledge of the terms. The last payment is scheduled for next month.