The full quote from Olohan's filing is kind of peculiar, I'm curious what the deal is with "walking pace":

> In response to Olohan’s request during the call for specifics as to why Google believed he was not inclusive, Google’s Employee Investigations team explained that he had shown favoritism towards high performers, which it considered “non-inclusive,” and commented on employees’ walking pace and hustle, which it considered “ableist.”

From the original NY Post article, he was "managing director of food, beverages, and restaurants" so presumably the staff in question were food service workers, where they have to move around the kitchens or other areas as part of their duties. (I'm not claiming that "walking pace" is actually related to performance. But that was my read of how it was at least tangentially relevant, similarly to how "typing speed" might be tangentially relevant to roles requiring the use of a computer.)

Was it literally their walking pace, or a metaphor for their general level of urgency?

This is the kind of vibe that makes me uninterested in working for FAANGMULAs.

Only shaking my head about this.

Keeping in mind, of course, that the source the news is pulling from for all this information is the plaintiff.

This is one side of a two-sided story.

"sir, you need to be more racist to keep working here!"

> I always expected capitalism to eat itself, but not like this... not like this.

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is not capitalism.

"Capitalism" most certainly doesn't value equality or diversity.

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is generative AI. The greatest leveller of skills ever created.

Yeah, that's kinda of my point. Google is a incredibly successful capitalistic entity, but is punishing an employee for being biased in favor of ability. Favoring ability is rather core to capitalism.

That's meritocracy. The core to capitalism is contingent on spending capital to gain more capital, whether this is done through merit, politics, marketing, or what have you.

That's a rather narrow definition. The engine of capitalism, at least in a Smithian sense, is gains from and rewards to specialization.