Google Sued (Again) for Age Discrimination, This Time by Former Employee Who Claims He Was Called 'Grandpa'
After a July settlement with 200 job seekers claiming the company didn't hire them because of their age, Google faces a lawsuit from a 72-year-old former employee who said the tech giant's investigation of alleged discrimination and retaliation was inadequate.
September 16, 2019 at 10:26 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Recorder
A baby boomer who worked as a hardware test engineer at Google is suing the company, claiming his manager called him "grandpa" and retaliated against him after he raised complaints of discrimination.
Rodney Broome, the 72-year-old former employee, asserts that he faced "a relentless campaign of harassment and discrimination" when his 40-something boss joined the team in 2017. The complaint, filed Sept. 5 in Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleges that his supervisor referred to him as "a worthless piece of shit," directed his co-workers to "tell Grandpa to pick up the pace" and said he was in "retirement mode." Beyond being labeled "grandpa," the complaint claims Broome's car was broken into and burglarized not long after his boss suggested he might have a hard time getting to work one day or have car trouble.
After Broome complained to his manager's supervisor, the complaint alleges that his manager retaliated with poor performance reviews, cutting his bonuses without explanation and offering his job to two younger employees.
The age discrimination suit follows an $11 million settlement between Google and more than 200 job seekers in July. The applicants claimed they were looked over for positions at the tech company, because of their age. As part of the settlement, which Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart negotiated on behalf of Google, the company also agreed to train employees on age bias, create a subcommittee to recruit for age diversity in certain engineering positions, change its marketing materials to reflect employees of all ages and thoroughly investigate complaints of age-based discrimination.
Broome, however, alleges that the company closed its investigation into his claims after a month and a half and did not interview all of the witnesses. Two months after the investigation closed without flagging any policy violations, Broome quit, according to the complaint.
"These claims are unsubstantiated and we intend to defend them vigorously," a company spokesperson said.
The complaint also contends that Broome's manager asked him to take part in illegal or unauthorized activities, such as falsifying timesheets and making unauthorized charges to company credit cards. The age discrimination and retaliation, according to the complaint, is part of the manager's broader scheme of unlawful behavior, including illegally disposing of e-waste and other materials, selling company equipment for personal profit, double-billing customers and instructing employees to underreport their hours.
Broome's lawyer John Winer of Winer, Burritt, & Tillis in Oakland said the case is one of the most blatant instances of age discrimination he's seen but one that's part of a pattern of discrimination and harassment stemming from the tech industry's youthful culture.
"I think that Google and other companies are far more focused on earnings than they are on human resource issues," said Winer, who is handling the case alongside Winer Burritt's Shawn Tillis. "Instead of attempting to assure that there is no harassment and discrimination in the workforce, in fact it's rampant."
Despite Silicon Valley's reputation for creative problem solving, Winer said companies such as Google react to discrimination litigation similar to other businesses.
"It's been my experience that when it comes to facing potential lawsuits, the tech companies are really not that different than traditional companies," he said. "Instead of solving issues in advance with effective training, human resources and investigations, they tend to fall into this bunker mentality once a case is filed and intimidate by aggressively defending."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHow Kramer Levin's Patent Trial Team Approaches Teaching Tech to Juries
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Fends Off Antitrust Claims for Thomson Reuters Against AI-Backed Start-Up
'Corporate Lawyers Who Happen to Litigate': A Closer Look at a Recent Securities Litigation Hot Streak at Freshfields
Litigators of the Week: Robbins Geller Lands $490M Securities Settlement in Case Over Apple's Prospects in China
Trending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250