Perhaps it would be helpful if we cite the statements we're referring to. Which statement do you interpret as saying "Google had wide latitude in determining what qualified as sexual-harassment"?
In at least one statement which I've quoted here too many times already ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), the lawyer who wrote this memo expressed their own opinion that these statements were too offensive to be protected.
> the Employer determined that certain portions of the Charging Party’s memorandum violated existing policies on harassment and discrimination
> The Employer has a legitimate, lawful policy prohibiting race and sex discrimination and harassment in its workplace.
> An employer’s good-faith efforts to enforce its lawful anti-discrimination or anti-harassment policies must be afforded particular deference in light of the employer’s duty to comply with state and federal
EEO laws
> Where an employee’s conduct significantly disrupts work processes, creates a hostile work environment, or constitutes racial or sexual discrimination or
harassment, the Board has found it unprotected even if it involves concerted activities regarding working conditions
This seems like an interesting discussion to continue, weighing the deference the memo mentioned to the employer's policy against the fact that they ultimately make their own determination (which they must, of course, make to avoid abusive or spurious claims of harassment). Sadly, I'm too tired to continue right now. Perhaps another time.
I think Popehat (a fairly respected defense lawyer and first amendment blogger) has a fairly good write up of the NLRB memo and what it's ruling says here:
In at least one statement which I've quoted here too many times already ("so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected"), the lawyer who wrote this memo expressed their own opinion that these statements were too offensive to be protected.