Reid v. Google – The demise of the “stray remarks” doctrine Reid v. Google, Inc., supra, 50 Cal.4th
512, also provides new ammunition for employees seeking to prove their employers’ proffered reasons for termination are pretextual. In Reid, the employee, Brian Reid, was hired at age 52 to be Google’s Director of Operations and Director of Engineering. During his tenure, he was subjected to frequent ageist comments by superiors as well as “co-workers.” For example, the V.P of Operations, Hölzle, who was 38 years old, told Reid that his opinions and ideas were “obsolete” and “too old to matter,” that he was “slow,” “fuzzy,” “sluggish,” and “lethargic,” and that he did not “display a sense of urgency” and “lack[ed] energy.” Other co-workers called Reid an “old
man,” an “old guy,” and an “old fuddy- duddy,” told him his knowledge was ancient, and joked that Reid’s CD (com- pact disc) jewel case office placard should be an “LP” instead of a “CD.” Less than two years after being hired, Reid was told he was not a “cultural fit” and was termi- nated. (Id. at 518-519.) In his age discrim- ination lawsuit, the trial court disregarded the discriminatory comments made by co- workers and superiors alike, following the federal “stray remarks doctrine.” The Court of Appeals reversed and the California Supreme Court granted review. Google asked the Supreme Court to
follow federal precedent and adopt the judicially created stray remarks doctrine so that California courts can ‘disregard discriminatory comments by co-workers and non-
decisionmakers, or comments unrelat- ed to the employment decision’ to ensure that unmeritorious cases princi- pally supported by such remarks are disposed of before trial.
(Id. at 538.) In rejecting Google’s request, the
Supreme Court observed that “strict application of the stray remarks doctrine, as urged by Google, would result in a court’s categorical exclusion of evidence even if the evidence was relevant.” (Id. at 539.) The Court went on to explain that ageist statements made by non-decision- makers or those made by decisionmakers outside the decisionmaking process “may be relevant, circumstantial evidence of discrimination.” (Ibid.) The Reid Court’s primary quarrel
with the “stray remarks doctrine” was that
THE LAST THING ON HIS MIND IS HOW TO FINANCE HIS LAW FIRM.
IT’S THE FIRST THING ON OURS.
California Attorney Lending offers revolving credit lines to litigators up to $5 million+. The amount of the loan is based on the total value of your contingent fees. The funds may be used for all law firm expenses—from trial preparation and expert witness fees to advertising and payroll.
We’ve helped some of the nation’s top litigators reach their goals. Let us help you. Call 1-866-522-0216 for your free consultation, or visit
www.CalAttyLending.com.
EXCLUSIVE ENDORSEMENTS ACCREDITATIONS
California Attorney Lending is a licensed lender and broker under the California Finance Lenders Law. © 2011 California Attorney Lending, LLC. All rights reserved. APRIL 2011 The Advocate Magazine — 85
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112