Lawsuit: Woke Google Discriminated Against Diversity ‘Poster Child’ Based on Race and Disability

Jalon Hall, a black woman who worked at Google and was treated as a poster child for diversity based on her race and deafness, has accused the tech giant of subjecting her to both racism and “audism,” discrimination based on her hearing disability.

Wired reports that ultra-woke Google has long touted its commitment to fostering a diverse and inclusive workplace, but a recent lawsuit from one of its employees has exposed a stark contrast between the company’s public image and its internal practices. Jalon Hall, a black woman who is deaf, alleges that the tech giant used her as a poster child for diversity while denying her reasonable accommodations and subjecting her to both racism and “audism” – prejudice against the deaf or hard of hearing.

“Google is using me to make them look inclusive for the Deaf community and the overall Disability community,” Hall says. “In reality, they need to do better.”

Hall’s ordeal began in 2020 when she was recruited to be part of a new in-house content moderation team called Wolverine. During the interview process, she was assured that a sign language interpreter would be provided and accommodated. “The recruiter said via email that a sign language interpreter would be provided ‘and can be fully accommodated :)'” Hall recalls. However, this promise quickly unraveled after she joined the company.

Within days of starting her job, Hall found herself denied access to a sign language interpreter, with managers citing confidentiality concerns despite interpreters following strict confidentiality standards. “This was not a reasonable accommodation,” Hall says. “I was thinking, What did I get myself into? Do they not believe I’m Deaf? I need my interpreter all day. Why are you robbing me of the chance of doing my job?”

Without an interpreter, Hall struggled to perform her duties, often failing to meet her quota of reviewing videos due to poor transcriptions and limited accessibility features. “I felt humiliated, realizing that I would not grow in my career,” she says.

Despite filing three HR complaints, Hall claims that her concerns were largely ignored, prompting her to sue Google for discrimination based on her race and disability. “I was born to push through hard times,” she says. “It would be selfish to quit Google. I’m standing in the gap for those often pushed aside.” Although Google responded by arguing that the case should be dismissed on procedural grounds, the company did not deny Hall’s allegations.

Hall’s experiences shed light on the challenges faced by disabled and minority employees at Google, a company that has long been criticized for its internal culture favoring those who fit tech industry norms. According to Hall, Google has used her as a symbol of inclusivity, with the company’s social media accounts praising her for “helping expand opportunities for Black Deaf professionals!” and “making #LifeAtGoogle more inclusive!”

However, behind the scenes, Hall alleges that she has been subjected to both racism and discrimination due to her disability, with her access to essential tools and accommodations being slow-walked or denied altogether. “My point of view is often not heard,” Hall says. “I feel hidden and pushed aside.” She claims that even in her current role on the Responsible AI and Human-Centered Technology team, her interpreter is still restricted from confidential conversations, and her input is often disregarded or overlooked.

While companies like Google may tout their diversity efforts, Hall claims that the reality for many disabled and minority employees tells a different story. “The premise that everyone deserves a shot at every role rests on the company doing whatever it takes to provide accommodations,” says Stephanie Parker, a former senior strategist at YouTube. “From my experience with Google, there is a pretty glaring lack of commitment to accessibility.”

Read more at Wired here.

Lucas Nolan is a reporter for Breitbart News covering issues of free speech and online censorship.