• 12
  • August
    2010

Last week, the California Supreme Court ruled that an age discrimination lawsuit against Google could continue on to court and that stray remarks by former co-workers and superiors could be considered relevant in court. Not quite a guarantee that such offhand statements will be allowed as part of the prosecution's argument, the court's decision does allow for the potential that they may be deemed relevant.

The case in question involves Google's former director of engineering, Brian Reid. Hired when he was in his mid-50's, Brian accuses Google executives of promoting a youthful environment at the expense of older workers. He claims that during his time there, he was subject to designations as "an old fuddy-duddy" and other age-based quips.

Notorious for its predominantly young workforce, Google has denied that Reid was fired for any reason other than performance. Executives claim that Reid was simply not a fit for the company, but that that cultural fit had nothing to do with his age.

Google vigorously protested the proposed inclusion of stray remarks in the event of a trial, but California Supreme Court Justices disagreed. However, again, the Court's decision only allows for the potential of inclusion and Justices were careful to clarify that the ruling should be read conservatively, only representing the points unique to this particular instance.

Still, it seems feasible that such a ruling might reveal an attitude on the part of the court - even if the ruling cannot be viewed as a flexible precedent.

Related Resource