Google Settles Suit Alleging Age Bias in Hiring Practices
Google deems only 20.5 percent of onsite job candidates to be qualified for an employment offer, according to court filings in the case.
December 21, 2018 at 02:57 PM
3 minute read
Google Inc. has settled an age-bias suit in California brought by an unsuccessful job candidate who claimed in a collective action that the technology company discriminated against applicants over the age of 40.
None of the lawyers would talk about the terms of the settlement, which was reached confidentially in the case Heath v. Google, according to a Dec. 20 court filing.
Robert Heath was 60 years old when he interviewed for a third time with Google in 2011. He claimed his age was held against him as he attempted to secure a software engineer position. Heath's attorney, Dow Patten, declined to comment.
The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleged Google's hiring and evaluation process favors younger workers over older applicants.
Other plaintiffs on the case, represented by Kotchen & Low, have reached a conditional settlement with the company, as well, Patten said Friday. The plaintiffs who filed suit were 260 on-site candidates interviewed by more than 1,000 Google engineers around the country.
“Google claims to have a policy against age discrimination, but has offered no admissible evidence that it takes steps to enforce that policy,” Patten of Smith Patten said in a court filing in November.
Candidates for employment at Google are assessed for their “Googleyness” or culture fit. Court papers in the case said “Googleyness” includes traits such as “cares about the team, puts the user first, effectively challenges the status quo, thrives in ambiguity and values feedback.” An internal system at Google called “gHire” makes note of an applicant's overall score, an assessment of coding abilities and any experience relevant to Google.
The hiring practice at Google involves “feedback from numerous Google engineers in a multi-stage, flexible process of consensus decision making.” Employment candidates who reach an on-site interview meet with four or five engineers. Google deems only 20.5 percent of onsite job candidates to be qualified for an employment offer, according to court filings in the case.
A California federal judge had certified a collective action of job candidates who joined the lawsuit against Google.
Google was represented by a team from Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart. Attorneys Brian Berry and Thomas McInerney did not respond to request for comment.
The company has said that it has a non-discrimination policy and refuted the claims that it is biased toward younger workers.
“This is not a case of age discrimination. It is a case of a disappointed job applicant who cannot accept that his interview did not go as hoped,” Ogletree shareholder Elizabeth Falcone wrote in a court filing last month. “And, while Heath may have evidence that his interview did not run smoothly, that does not permit a jury to infer age discrimination.”
Read more:
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 All'Appropriate Relief'?: Google Offers Remedy Concessions in DOJ Antitrust Fight
4 minute read'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute read‘It's Your Funeral’: On Avoiding Damaging Your Client’s Case With Uncivil Behavior
Practice Tips From—and About—the New Judges on the Northern District of California Bench
Trending Stories
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