California Court of Appeal Allows Age Discrimination Case to Proceed Against Google
A California court of appeal recently gave another stark reminder to employers that certain terminology may be seen by courts as covert ageism and open the door to claims of age discrimination. In Reid v. Google, Inc.,____ Cal. App. 4th ____ (2007), a California court of appeal reversed a superior court’s grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s age discrimination claims. The plaintiff was over 50 years old and worked for Google, Inc. He offered statistical evidence of age discrimination at Google, purporting to show that there was a relationship between age of Google employees and their performance ratings and bonuses received. In addition, he also offered as evidence the alleged ageist remarks of a supervisor, who the plaintiff claimed had stated that the plaintiff did not fit into “the culture” of Google. The plaintiff also alleged that he was called “fuzzy,” “sluggish,” and “lethargic” and that he was told that his ideas were "obsolete" and "too old to matter." Finally, the plaintiff argued that the reasons given to him for his termination when he was terminated differed from the reasons presented to the court by Google in its motion for summary judgment.
Based upon these facts, the appellate court reversed the superior court’s grant of summary judgment on the plaintiff’s age discrimination claims, finding that, when combined with the statistical evidence, the alleged comments from the plaintiff’s supervisor were not, as a matter of law, “stray remarks.” Thus, the court found that the plaintiff had presented enough evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning his claims of age discrimination against Google, and sent the case back to the Superior Court to allow it to proceed. Reid v. Google should serve as a reminder to employers to avoid terms that may double as ageist remarks, even if they do so indirectly. For the full text of the court’s decision, click here.