You're right that "robbery" means theft with violence, threat of violence, or otherwise placing a person in a state of fear.

But many (most) jurisdictions classify domestic burglary (that is, breaking and entering into occupied domestic premises with the intent of stealing) as a crime against the person (akin to a violent crime) - because a person has a right to feel safe in their home, and the housebreaker has violated that. That's a fair reflection of how burglary victims (and thus society) feels in the aftermath of a domestic burglary - they'll say they feel "frightened" and "violated", and that they're fearful the burglar will return. So criminal sentences for domestic burglary can be quite severe (akin to those of actual violent crimes like assault); even if the occupant was out at the time. And an actual encounter between a burglar and a resident, unless the burglar promptly jumps out the window and runs like hell, can quickly become an actual robbery.

So the police will often treat any burglary where the residents have actually seen the burglar inside their home as a robbery and should respond promptly and in sufficient numbers. Whereas if the victim returns home to find it burglarised, once they assure the 911 dispatcher that the burglars are gone, the police may take hours to respond (and maybe not at all).

Note that "occupied" means "someone lives here", not necessarily that someone is actually present in the home at the time of the crime.

In most places, this is different when someone has broken into commercial premises (shop, warehouses, factories, offices) where the crime they'll be charged with will be more in line with other crimes of theft.

People have noted that California is an "at will" jurisdiction. It is. But that doesn't give an employer complete carte blanche to terminate. In this case, California Labor Code 1102.5 may apply - in particular

(c) An employer, or any person acting on behalf of the employer, shall not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation of or noncompliance with a local, state, or federal rule or regulation.

The relevant state regulation being 7282.5 of the California Government Code (cf California Senate Bill 54 (2017) - the “sanctuary state” law).

That is, if you're breaking state law, and an employee blows the whistle on you, you can't fire them for it. At will or no. And as the federal government failed in its attempt to have that law ruled unconstitutional, it stands, and plaintiff can allege Google was breaking it.

On the face of it, the agreement the employees signed is an "ambiguous contract".

I'm sure Google will argue it's not a contract, but if it's a condition of employment, and employees were obligated it sign it, a court may very well find it is one. And contracts are always two-way: the company isn't obligated to *also* follow the code of conduct, but if the code obligates the employee to take actions, Google is obligated to facilitate that. If, for example, an employment contract obligated an empoyee to work at the office on Acacia Avenue, and the company refused to allow the employee to enter that office, the company would have breached the contract.

Documents written in plain English can, are, and often should be contracts. Much ink is spent debating what common English words mean, but courts very seldom stray far from what the dictionary says they mean (because the law is supposed to be applicable to, and so understandable by, everyone - and becase legislation itself is drafted in a fairly plain mode of English). Courts interpret, they don't invent. Well written contracts are clear and precise and explicit - but works that are none of those things don't automatically become legally meaningless.

So yes, a court very well may be asked to discuss what "don't be evil" and "speak up" really mean. Foolish as that may seem. If the document doesn't define either (sounds like it doesn't) then parties have to interpret it (and the court to consider if those interpretations are reasonable). And it's a general principle, in the interpretation of ambiguous contracts that "in most jurisdictions, ambiguous contracts are said to be resolved 'against' the party that drafted the contract. The party that did not write the contract will sometimes receive the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguities."

Google drafted the contract, added binding elements about "evil" and "speaking up", and if the court feels the employee's interpretation of that is reasonable (even if Google's interpretation is *also* reasonable) then the court can find Google broke the contract. The judge might very well be annoyed at being asked to adjudicate such a matter, but as the drafter, Google is the one the judge will be annoyed at. Don't annoy judges.

Google's lawyers can try to argue that the company didn't really mean it - that "don't be evil" is a meaningless slogan, that no-one could reasonably act on. Or maybe, in discovery, they'll find some email from a Google exec to another saying something to that effect. If it's in a legal document, that employees are obligated to sign, a court can find Google acted in bad faith ("entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it") which would be a catastrophe for Google.

This lawsuit is a massive reach, and it's hugely unlikely to come to trial, but it's not meritless or frivolous. My prediction: Google will try very hard to have the case dismissed on a range of technical and jurisdictional matters. If that fails, and proceedings start (which would entail discovery) they'll settle. No-one is actually going to court to litigate what "evil" is. They're all lawyers - they don't have a clue :)