Google Employee Made Redundant After Reporting Manager: Court Hearing Details
1 day ago
ShareSave
Rianna Croxford, Investigations Correspondent
A senior Google employee, Victoria Woodall, has claimed her redundancy followed her whistleblowing about a manager who allegedly shared inappropriate stories and explicit images. This shocking case has been presented in an ongoing employment tribunal.
Allegations of Retaliation After Whistleblowing
– Woodall asserts she faced a campaign of retaliation after reporting her manager’s conduct, which included sharing stories about his swinger lifestyle and showing a nude photo of his wife.
– Google UK’s internal investigation supported these accusations, confirming the manager had touched two female colleagues without consent, labeling his actions as sexual harassment.
– Contrary to Woodall’s claims, Google maintains that she became “paranoid” after whistleblowing, interpreting normal business interactions as “sinister.”
A Challenging Workplace Environment
– Woodall alleges she was subjected to a “relentless campaign of retaliation” after her complaint also implicated friends of her boss, who received disciplinary action for inaction regarding the manager’s behavior.
– The claims also emphasize a “boys’ club” culture within Google, including a previously funded men’s only chairman’s lunch that continued until December 2022. Google has stated that their internal review found no evidence of such a culture and that the event ceased as it no longer aligned with company policy.
A decision from the London Central Employment Tribunal is anticipated in the coming weeks.
Disturbing Conduct Reported
– Woodall, who worked as a senior industry head in Google’s UK Sales and Agencies team, reported that in August 2022, a female client described a manager boasting about his past sexual encounters with multiple women, including making inappropriate comments during a business lunch.
– Additionally, a second female client reported that the same manager had shown her a photo of his wife’s genitalia while scrolling through his phone.
Google’s investigation involved interviews with 12 individuals, revealing multiple incidents that substantiated allegations of sexual harassment, violating company policies.
Specific Incidents Highlighted
– The manager was found responsible for inappropriate touching and comments, including suggesting sexual acts with a female colleague while asserting that his wife would find it entertaining.
– Ultimately, he was dismissed for gross misconduct, while two colleagues who failed to intervene received recommendations for “documented coaching.”
Escalation of Actions Post-Reporting
– Following her whistleblowing in 2022, Woodall claims her boss forced her to exchange a successful client account for one that was failing, originating from a colleague who later faced disciplinary actions.
– She described this transfer as a “poisoned chalice” that threatened her job security.
– Woodall alleges she was subsequently demoted and faced a series of retaliatory moves, including her performance being downgraded.
Attempts to Address Workplace Culture
– In 2023, Google initiated a redundancy process that led to her boss’s departure along with a senior manager who failed to act on the misconduct.
– Woodall escalated her claims of a boys’ club culture to top management, meeting with Debbie Weinstein, the then-vice president of Google UK and Ireland, who expressed shock at the claims.
Conclusion: Ongoing Legal Proceedings
– As of March 2024, Woodall was made redundant alongside the other implicated senior manager but remains employed with Google, receiving long-term sickness payments attributed to work-related stress.
– Google vehemently denies her claims, asserting her redundancy was part of broader departmental changes rather than retaliation for her whistleblowing.
– The situation raises critical questions about workplace accountability and the support systems in place for employees facing harassment and retaliation.
Google’s response maintains that Woodall’s whistleblowing was recognized as significant but insists that all subsequent actions were standard business decisions—an assertion that awaits judicial review.