1. Do you agree or disagree with the actions of the employers in these cases? Why?
2. The Damore case could be read as a conflict between the right of free speech and the right to equal opportunity and freedom from harassment. How do you think a conflict between these rights should be resolved?
3. Google claimed that they were dismissing Damore for what he said because of ethical considerations such as equal opportunity. Akima seems to have dismissed Briskman because her speech threatened the financial well-being of the firm. How do you compare these differing rationales for restricting employee speech?
4. Change the specific conditions of each case. Imagine that Damore argued that because men are more aggressive and less sociable, they should not be placed in positions of authority and responsibility. Imagine Akima did not do business with the government but fired Briskman simply because they disagreed with her political stance. Would these changes make your evaluation of these cases different? Why or why not?