In October, the New York Times released an exposé on Google protecting Andy Rubin.

The Android creator parted ways with the tech company back in 2014 after serving as an executive. Mr. Rubin paved the way for the company to enter the world of mobile phones and tablets. His decision "to start a tech incubator focused on start-ups interested in building hardware" led to his departure.

Mr. Rubin was, in fact, asked to step down from his position after an employee disclosed being involved in an affair with him. According to the woman's report, she was intimidated by him into engaging in a sexual act with him. Google did run an investigation that confirmed her accusation. Mr. Rubin remained in the loop as he was informed about it. Then, Larry Page, acting as the chief executive at the time, requested a resignation from him.

In exchange, Mr. Rubin received $90 million, which was divided into monthly payments of $2 million for four years. The last one was paid out in October 2018 (yes, literally a few weeks ago).

This would not be the first time for Google to keep their silence, while an executive was being compensated regardless of the claims about sexual misconduct.

Though Eileen Naughton, vice president for people operations, insisted that the corporation "takes harassment seriously and reviews every complaint," a Google engineer by the name of Liz Fong-Jones worried about facilitating an unsafe environment as harassment is just brushed under the rug.

When big corporations like Google take light actions, what message does it give people?

That men with wealth and power will be safeguarded rather than punished? That companies care more about their brand than their workers? And, that hush money is the solution?

Employees, whether they are at the top or at the bottom, should be treated equally. An executive that displays inappropriate behavior and commits a wrongdoing does not deserve to be protected as if he is an innocent child and the company is his forgiving mother. Victims should not have to watch their perpetrators be let off easily and given special exit packages. Such actions just come to show that maintaining a scandal-free brand is a bigger priority than ensuring the safety and comfort of employees.

Look, it is more acceptable to make it known to the public about the improper incidents and to penalize the culprits regardless of who they are.

After the exposé went public, 20,000 employees participated in the Google Walkout to protest against mishandling of sexual harassment in the workplace. Demonstrations took place in major cities across the globe.

The staff should not have to organize a march to see the company resolve the mishandling. It should already be constantly striving for a safe and comfortable environment. Employees should not have to feel uneasy about reporting disorderly conduct.

Negligence will only negatively impact on a firm no matter how much it thinks that it is saving itself from potential consequences they may face if they were to publicly announce impropriety.