A former Google executive who was allegedly fired for harassing two female co-workers over dinner is suing the internet giant for unfair dismissal, alleging it rigs its search engine to benefit privileged customers.
Robin Frewer worked for the Silicon Valley firm for 12 years, rising to the position of commercial director in its London-based tourism business, until he was fired in 2020.
Google says he was fired for sexually harassing two female co-workers over dinner.
But Mr. Frewer claims he was actually fired for exposing “anti-competitive” practices at the company.
Robin Frewer (pictured) worked for the Silicon Valley firm for 12 years, rising to the position of commercial director at its London-based tourism business, until he was fired in 2020.
In evidence presented to the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT), the former executive stated that Google acted to ensure that “its two main customers received a disproportionate amount of hits when people were looking for holiday information.”
As part of his case, he claims that he was unfairly fired “on the grounds that the dismissal was for one reason or another, that he made confidential information.”
As part of its defense, Google is trying to ensure that the identity of the customers it refers to is not made public when a full court hearing later this year.
This was initially successful, and last year a labor tribunal judge ruled that they could remain anonymous.
However, as a result of the victory of “open justice” and freedom of the press, this decision was overturned after the decision delivered last week by Judge James Tyler.
At a hearing in London, it was said that Mr. Frewer – now a non-executive director of the British Tourist Board – began working at Google in 2007.
“At the time of his dismissal, he was serving as commercial director for Travel EMEA,” Judge Tyler said in the ruling.
‘(He) was fired on disciplinary action on June 8, 2020. (Google) claims that (he) was fired due to his behavior at a dinner on September 25, 2019, when he allegedly sexually harassed two female co-workers by making inappropriate sexual comments and suggestions. .’
However, Mr Frewer disputes this.
“(He) claimed, in substance, that he disclosed information that he reasonably believed was in the public interest and sought to show that (Google) engaged in anti-competitive behavior by favoring two major clients in the travel industry,” stated in the decision.
At a preliminary hearing in March 2021, Google requested that all of its customers be anonymized, EAT was told.
As part of its defense, Google is trying to ensure that the identities of the customers it refers to are not made public when a full court hearing is held later this year (stock photo used)
He also requested an order allowing him to redact “commercially confidential and irrelevant” information “which would include details of general income figures that are not attributable to a specific client” from evidence to be presented to the tribunal.
Employment Judge Harjit Grewal granted the requests last June.
However, Mr. Frewer appealed, arguing that the tribunal had no authority to issue such an order.
Supporting his appeal, Judge Tyler said: “(He) alleges that (Google) acted in an anti-competitive manner to ensure that two of his main customers received a disproportionate number of hits when people were searching for holiday information.
“There is a strong argument that the public would be genuinely and legitimately interested in knowing the identity of the key customers who are said to have been granted this benefit.
“Any press releases are likely to be of much less interest to readers if the names of the companies (Google) they are supposed to support are kept secret.
“This was a matter that the labor judge had to consider before issuing a ruling that derogated from the principle of open justice, regardless of how the arguments were presented by the parties.
“The Labor Tribunal did not adequately consider the principle of open justice, including the importance of naming, when deciding to anonymize all of the first defendant’s clients.”
Judge Tyler ordered the case returned to the labor court for retrial. Any proposed fixes need to be considered “step by step”, he said.
Mr. Frewer’s case, which includes claims of unfair dismissal, wrongful termination, disability discrimination and whistleblower violations, is due in May.