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
© 2025 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 AllLitigators of the Week: Shortly After Name Partner Kathleen Sullivan’s Retirement, Quinn Emanuel Scores Appellate Win for Vimeo
Litigators of the Week: A Knockout Blow to Latest FCC Net Neutrality Rules After ‘Loper Bright’
How 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
Trending Stories
- 1Chief Judge Joins Panel Exploring Causes for Public's Eroding Faith in NY Legal System
- 2Pogo Stick Maker Wants Financing Company to Pay $20M After Bailing Out Client
- 3Goldman Sachs Secures Dismissal of Celebrity Manager's Lawsuit Over Failed Deal
- 4Trump Moves to Withdraw Applications to Halt Now-Completed Sentencing
- 5Trump's RTO Mandate May Have Some Gov't Lawyers Polishing Their Resumes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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