Judges Reinstate Charges In Google Age Discrimination Suit

theodp writes "A California appeals court has reinstated former Stanford prof Brian Reid's age-discrimination suit against Google, ruling that a lower Court erred in siding with Google and rejecting Mr. Reid's claims. From the Court Decision (PDF): 'We conclude that Reid produced sufficient evidence that Google's reasons for terminating him were untrue or pretextual, and that Google acted with discriminatory motive such that a factfinder would conclude Google engaged in age discrimination.' As side notes, helping Reid make his case is CS Prof Norman Matloff, while Google's actions are being defended by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati of pretexting-was-not-generally-unlawful fame."

Comments

I guess you're new to reading

[I'm Don Giovanni]

Looks like you need help with your reading comprehension skills, as my post clearly indicated speculation on future events.

Examine the title of my post:
"Google to become 'convicted discriminator?"
Note the "to become"; that implies future events. Note the '?'; that implies speculation. The combination suggests speculation on future events.

Examine the sentence you quoted:
"Looks like in the future slashdotters will be able to refer to Google as 'convicted discriminator' in each and every Google story."
Note the "Looks like"; that suggest speculation. Note the "in the future" and "will be"; those suggest future events. Combined, they suggest speculation on future events.

See how that works?

BTW, according to the court's words, "We conclude that Reid produced sufficient evidence that Google's reasons for terminating him were untrue or pretextual, and that Google acted with discriminatory motive such that a factfinder would conclude Google engaged in age discrimination.", Google is indeed heading down the path to "conviction". Sure, the path could change, but attacking me for speculating that conviction is in the offing is baseless.

Of course the term "conviction" doesn't apply to civil cases, but that never stopped slashdotters from using that word for civil cases in the past, now has it? ;)

Re:I dislike this result

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Psst. I'm a Software Engineer. We do group interviews at my company so that everyone on the team has a say in who is hired.

Do you wear those snazzy red outfits and wide-brimmed red hats while you grill the hapless victims? Because clearly you do not actually assess any of their technical job skills.

See my other reply regarding the fact that a simple google of "Google interview process" (Oh, the irony) would pretty much have solved the problem. He came unprepared. Anyone of any age could have done the same.

Actually he could not. At least that is the general concensus amongst the older people ever interviewed by Google.

Or to put the lie to the test in a completely different way: what is the age breakdown of all employees at Google? I am sure that this little bit of statisics, which is wholly impossible to obscure by any smoke and mirrors manouvering about the interview processes and any hot air about "being prepared", will become the center-piece of this lawsuit sooner or later. And I am afraid Google will have a really hard time dancing its way out of this wee jam.

Re:You need to polish your interview skills grandp

[IgnoramusMaximus]

Those questions in an interview isn't about being smart or knowing something. It just shows if you are prepared or not (just like the SATs, GRE etc). "Snot-nosed" college kids don't like those questions either, just their college consolers told them the rules of the game and they came prepared.

Which, of course, would represent the Apex of Stupidity, if it were not, as many people already pointed out, a tool for ensuring that your employees belong to a certain social/age group.

Or to put it another way: this is the equivalent of asking questions about the sexual habits of sea cucumbers, after having put out a word on the University campus that this will be the required "curriculum". Uncritical students, having been indoctrinated in memorizing any odd crap the teachers demand, would simply subject themselves to this kind of treatment. Anyone with any sort of real-life experience would go: WTF?! And subsequently fail the "Interview" for being "unprepared" after having assumed that this must be some sort of a joke because no one with two neurons to rub together would ever consider this being a method of selecting skilled personnel. And the joke is on them, for, of course, this is not a method of selecting skilled personnel. It is a way to expand your circle of "cool kids".

In short, the "rules of the game" are rigged by Google (as they are rigged by the college teachers to their own ends) but unlike that of colleges, Google's "rigging" runs contrary to the Labour Laws. Oops!