http://www.siliconvalley.com/companies/ci_15147417?nclick_check=1

California Supreme Court to consider age bias case against Google
By Howard Mintz

hmintz@mercurynews.com

Posted: 05/24/2010 08:23:17 AM PDT

When a then-emerging Google recruited engineer Brian Reid in the summer of 2002, it appeared to have landed a Silicon Valley superstar. Reid had managed the team that built one of the first Internet search engines at AltaVista. He’d helped co-found the precursor company to Adobe Systems. He’d even worked on Apollo 17.

But within two years, Google decided that the 54-year-old Reid was not a “cultural fit” for the company and fired him, allegedly after co-workers had described him as “an old man,” “slow,” “sluggish” and “an old fuddy-duddy.” Reid responded with an age discrimination lawsuit blasting Google’s 20-something culture for shunning his generation in the workplace.

Now, Reid’s long-running legal feud with Google has reached the California Supreme Court, which this week will hear arguments that will determine if the age discrimination allegations will ever be aired to a jury.

In a case that has attracted attention from employers’ and workers’ rights groups across the state because it could help define how much evidence is needed to press an age bias lawsuit, the justices are reviewing a San Jose appeals court’s conclusion that Reid is entitled to take his case to trial because he’d presented enough evidence for “a fact finder to conclude Google engaged in age discrimination.”

Google’s lawyers appealed that decision, saying it was flawed and that Reid has offered up only a collection of “stray remarks” that do not merit a trial. In court papers, they insist Reid was fired because he simply was not a good fit for the company, not because of his age. The justices will hear arguments from the two sides Wednesday in San Francisco.

“There are plenty of older people at Google who do very well and do fit,” said company spokesman Andrew Peterson.

Reid, who now works at Redwood City-based Internet Systems Consortium, referred questions to his lawyer, Lorraine Ocheltree, who declined to comment with the case pending. But in court papers, Reid alleges that Google’s poor treatment of older workers started at the top with co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin and filtered through management. He maintains he is owed tens of millions of dollars lost in stock options from his firing.

The allegations against Google, which is described as a workplace where it was a negative to not participate in snowboarding trips or lunchtime roller hockey games, could put the company in an awkward spot if the Supreme Court does allow the case to go to trial. But close Google watchers say they do not hear much buzz that the company is hostile to older workers, at least these days.

Google declined to disclose a breakdown of its workforce by age or say how many employees are at least 50 years old.

“We’re talking about a case that’s happening now, that’s reaching the Supreme Court now, from a company that when this all happened it was six or seven years ago,” said Danny Sullivan, editor-in-chief of Search Engine Land, a leading online newsletter that follows Google and other search companies. “In Internet dog years, that’s like 60 to 70 years. Perhaps the culture was even more youngish back then — it doesn’t mean it’s the case now.”

Reid was originally hired as director of operations and engineering, a top job at Google. While he dealt with the company’s top brass, his primary boss was Wayne Rosing, who was 55 at the time, a fact the company cites as evidence that older workers other than Reid could thrive at Google. Court papers say it was Rosing who two years later told Reid he was not a “cultural fit” when his job was terminated, a decision signed off on by CEO Eric Schmidt.

In addition to the “old fuddy-duddy” type comments from co-workers, Reid’s case includes accounts from experts who say Google simply preferred younger workers. “Older workers were perceived as not being able to think out of the box, as not having the necessary energy to work the expected hours, nor to have the focus required to maintain Google’s competitive advantage,” Rebecca LaBelle, a former Google recruiter, said in a court declaration.

But Google has invoked a legal theory that an age discrimination case cannot be founded on a collection of “stray remarks” and circumstantial evidence.

The Supreme Court’s decision will not address the gist of Reid’s allegations. Instead, the court has taken the case to take a fresh look at the scope of the “stray remarks” theory in employment cases. As a result, a host of organizations have lined up on both sides of the case, including AARP on Reid’s behalf and the California Employment Law Council for Google.

The Supreme Court has 90 days to rule on the case.

Mercury News staff writer Mike Swift contributed to this story. Contact Howard Mintz at 408-286-0236.

;-)

11/17- Hi Keith -
I got what I’m sure was a mass email from X X (Nelson) more than a week ago saying there will be followup on our interviews there. Any news?

My interview was with Y (sorry, don’t remember her last name) and she indicated that Nelson had provided lots of resumes to Google’s engineering group, but that they had done nothing in regard to reviewing them and getting feedback to Nelson. Not exactly a shocker, huh?…
The other bit I just remembered is Y talking about the deadlines Google placed on them – and how they were going to have a tough time meeting those deadlines w/out feedback from Google. It sounded like a catch-22.

…………………………………………………….

It seems appropriate at this point to go to
http://www.glassdoor.com/survey/start_input.htm?showSurvey=REVIEWS
and post an anonymous review of our recent interview experiences with Nelson, Adecco, and Google:

Get a free inside look at 32,000+ companies

To get free access to all:
Salaries
Company Reviews & Interviews
Then post an anonymous review of your:
Current Employer
Former Employer
Recent Interview Experience

I know of one person who said they interviewed with Google:
“Google is actively recruiting sourcers and schedulers first then will pursue recruiters. I went in for a sourcing position. I submitted for a recruiter position. Because I was more interested in recruiting versus sourcing, they passed on me.”
…………….

My (KH’s) story:

Three weeks ago, I interviewed with Nelson in Redwood City for a sourcing position. At that point, the recruiter gave me the impression that things were going well and my references would be checked in the next day or two, so I notified the references to expect calls. I’ve subsequently tried to find out more from Nelson via: phone and email, but I’ve had no response from them as to updates. I contacted one of my references late last week (who was and is again working at Google) and he said that he hadn’t been contacted by Nelson, and he hasn’t seen or heard of any sourcers or recruiters being either interviewed or hired at his building in Mountain View. (I’d mentioned this part before. -kh)

Googloids, Googloid Wannabes, Nelson and Adecco Folks:
Do you have any more info?

Get a free inside look at 32,000+ companies
If you’re interested in seeing all:
Salaries
Company Reviews & Interviews
Then post an ANONYMOUS review of your:
Current Employer
Former Employer
Recent Interview Experience
Employer
Job Location – Country
Job Location – City
(optional)

Spread the word…..

When you run the numbers you will realize google is offering average rates.

Have a great day…

http://blog.seattleinterviewcoach.com/2009/02/140-google-interview-questions.html