California has struck again in Reid v. Google. A simple age discrimination lawsuit involving 54 year-old Brian Reid, Google, and the term “old fuddy-duddy” might have possibly changed the landscape of discrimination lawsuits. Reid sued Google for allegedly firing him because of his age. He claimed his co-workers called him an “old fuddy-duddy” in 2004.
After a six-year legal battle with Google, the California Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Reid’s lawsuit deserves to go to trial. But more interesting, however, is that the court concluded he could base his claim on what his colleagues call “stray remarks.”
Reid says that, behind his back, coworkers called him “an old man,” “slow,” “lethargic,” and “sluggish.” He also claims coworkers said his compact disc cases should be labeled “LPs” instead of “CDs.”
Courts have traditionally held that such remarks cannot support discrimination complaints. In age discrimination cases, plaintiffs frequently support their claims with evidence of “comments and remarks by managers” or supervisors such as referring to some employees as “old timers.” But when “such comments are made by co-workers” who are not involved in the “decision to terminate the affected employee” or in a context unrelated to the decision, courts brand them as mere “stray remarks” that are not evidence” of discrimination.
The California Supreme Court, however, held in Reid v. Google that such “stray remarks” cannot be “categorically” dismissed from consideration. Instead, the Court explained that, although such remarks may not, alone, be persuasive, they can support a discrimination claim when “combined” with other evidence. When deciding whether to grant or deny summary judgment, courts must “analyze” the, “totality of circumstances.”
Courts do apply the “stray remarks” doctrine on a case-by-case basis, but the Court’s holding here elevates the role of such remarks to a level higher than mere fact-specific analysis. Indeed, when something cannot be “categorically” dismissed, it is forever in play.
The other evidence in this case is fairly intriguing. Reid’s 38-year-old supervisor told him on several occasions that his ideas were “too old to matter.” Google had hired Reid in 2002 when he was 52. “A year later, his performance review said Reid “projected confidence when dealing with fast changing situations,” “had an excellent attitude,” was “very intelligent” and “a terrific problem solver,” and that he “consistently met expectations.” The following year, Google fired Reid because he was allegedly “not a cultural fit.”
Google “culture” is, indeed, rather unique. Census data shows that, in the computer industry in Santa Clara County where Google is located, only nine percent of workers are 50 or older.
Another interesting tidbit: Google fired Reid one year before Google went public, which cost Reid 131,917 stock options that would have been worth tens of millions of dollars.
Whatever the evidence, Reid v. Google should alert employers that, to protect themselves from liability, they must make all reasonable efforts to eliminate all politically incorrect references from the office.
