9 ms·

Heath and Fillekes v. Google Inc. Lawsuit

69 points by howawaygoog 10y ago

howawaygoog 10y ago
just got email for this, I did interview for Google and I'm over 40, (wonder how they got my info). I passed the interview but was shut down at the committee, very much doubt that age was a factor.
- orionblastar 10y ago
  If you list years on your resume they can guess your age. I wouldn't mind working for Google, I am over 40 too.
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  Always an interesting choice, the upside if you join is you get some money if the suit is settled, I presume the only downside is that you pretty much won't ever be employed there ever if they have paid out a legal settlement check to you. (It turns out it isn't illegal not to hire based on previously being sued by someone). I doubt they would be forced to hire you if they settle. (which would be a huge downside in my opinion, you'd go to work at a company with them already hating you for working there.) So I guess it really comes down to whether you think there is any chance at all that they would ever hire you. I doubt anyone would hold participating in the suit against you, it isn't like you started it.
  - hkmurakami 10y ago
    That's fascinating considering we don't have that kind of negative consequence for participating in shareholder lawsuits.
    - akud 10y ago
      It makes me wonder if that's due to the relative power of capital vs labor. Is that what you were getting at?
  - ryandrake 10y ago
    At no point in the future will you be any younger. So if you think you are not being hired because they are discriminating based on age, then there is no downside to participating in the settlement--you won't be hired either way. If you think there is a chance you will be hired in the future, then they are not discriminating based on age.
    - sgift 10y ago
      This assumes that the age discrimination is an absolute criteria (over age x? Out) and not one of several factors (e.g. a tie breaker if you have multiple broadly similar applicants).
    - Klockan 10y ago
      I have seen plenty of older people getting hired at Google so it is obviously possible.
  - codeddesign 10y ago
    But here lies the problem..suing simply for the sake of suing. He clearly stated that he did feel that he was discriminated nor did he make it apparent that his life was dramatically altered from him not getting the job. And yet, you encourage him to sue anyways purely for the sake that he may get a little cash. There are legitimate lawsuits in which people's lives have been dramatically affected, and then there are the plethora of scum cases in which people are looking for quick cash. People say that Trump will take American down..no, it's people's unethical mindset that they feel they can take advantage of our basic right to sue for compensation when an aggresses circumstance has occurred.
    - cjhopman 10y ago
      You don't have to feel discriminated against to be discriminated against. Corporations (and individual people) should pay for minor abuses against large groups (typically people already pay for large abuses against minor groups).
  - pzh 10y ago
    > It turns out it isn't illegal not to hire based on previously being sued by someone. I thought there were laws to prevent Google from retaliating against somebody who sued them, and it would be illegal for them to not hire you on that basis alone...
    - ChuckMcM 10y ago
      Retaliation protection is about protecting you from being fired for bringing a protected labor suit. That doesn't apply to hiring. And as I understand it there is nothing wrong with actively discriminating against people who didn't go to a preferred university[1] as that is not a protected class. [1] And as with diversity (or any discrimination) it reduces the chance that you'll employ that really star employee.
- jcims 10y ago
  I got hired over 40, no problems. Left six months later for personal reasons, hoping to get back in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  - poikniok 10y ago
    What do you mean hoping to get back in? My general understanding of Google is that if you leave on decent terms you can get back to your previous role without having to interview again as long as you do it within a year or two, is that applicable here?
    - jcims 10y ago
      Yes! Just don't want to count my chickens before they have job offers :)
- jedmeyers 10y ago
  I've read that being rejected at a committee level happens relatively infrequent. Did they hint to what might be the reason for rejection at such a late stage?
  - googlerejection 10y ago
    I applied for an SWE position @ Google back in 2015. I was also rejected at the committee level, the reason was that I didn't have the amount of domain knowledge they wanted; in my case it was estimation theory/signal processing.
  - mike_hearn 10y ago
    It happens all the time. The first couple of interviews are just a phone screen. After the on-sites the packet goes to a committee, always, which makes the final decision having read all the feedbacks from all the interviews. The hiring committee isn't some last moment check/balance, it's the primary way hiring decisions are made. Or at least that's how it worked when I was an interviewer at Google.
    - blauditore 10y ago
      When I applied one year ago, my recruiter reviewed feedback of on-site interviews before passing it to the committee (which she decided not to do in my case). From what I understand, reruiters are rated based on the quality of candidates they pass to the hiring committee, so they have an incentive to only let the best pass.
      - awaythrow101 10y ago
        From my understanding, the recruiter has the option of outright rejecting you after your interview without passing it on to the hiring committee. Generally if your feedback is even vaguely positive, they'll pass it on though, so if you get rejected by the recruiter, it's usually pretty cut and dry. This may vary depending on the office involved.
  - Klockan 10y ago
- tr1ck5t3r 10y ago
  Age is a factor. Young people whilst educated highly are still very naive when it comes to thinking through the implications of their actions, so they are easy to manipulate and have them produce some nefarious dual use tech. In fact I would go so far to suggest that someone in their 40's has learnt enough about the ways of the world to know alot better the differences in the rights and wrongs of the world. In other words, you are set up to fail if you follow the traditional educational route. However its also worth pointing out, the age old problem of spotting giftedness. Einstein was mediocre at school and during his early year's at Uni, in fact it wasnt until his 30's that he started to come up with decent theories, so alot of companies hinder their growth & innovation potential by recruiting youngsters fresh out of an educational establishment.
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    I vouched for this because I believe it is a relevant contribution that falls within community guidelines, even if applying such theories in hiring decisions may open one to legal liability. Many of the posts in your history show up as dead, you may be getting autokilled and only getting replies when someone vouches.
wonko1 10y ago
Based on my experience of Google interviews, they seem like one of the companies least likely to discriminate based on age. Their interviews tend to be very tech/algorithm focused. To the point where they disregard almost everything else. I would have thought, fast and loose early stage startups would be far more likely to discriminate.
- fjdlwlv 10y ago
  People who have more years are expected to show either "trajectory" or have a compelling excuse. People with fewer years are judged by potential. Interestingly, there is research that claims that in businesses women are more often judged by last performance, while men are judged more by potential.
vemv 10y ago
Why would to want to work for an organsisation that (supposedly) discriminates against you anyway?
- cjhopman 10y ago
  Why would you want to eat at a restaurant that discriminates against you anyway? Why would you want to go to a school that discriminates against you anyway? Why would you want to ride a bus that discriminates against you anyway?
  - vemv 10y ago
    I'd be happy to not use those services. Generally, commerce/work is a voluntary exchange between two willing parts, not a right. Most forms of real discrimination have become extinct; now a significant % of cases (at least in the IT world) it just a bunch of complainers.
    - Beltiras 10y ago
      Sounds like privilege talking. I'm a middle-aged white male. I try to stay mindful of my privilege when others explain perceived wrongs.
      - golemotron 10y ago
        It takes extraordinary privilege to even conceive of the idea of privilege. Everyone else just lives their lives.
        grzm 10y ago
        A similar comparison can be made with respect to a lot of specialist fields or esoterica. For people using the internet as consumers, concepts like the CAP theorem aren't going to be something they would just stumble across: it would take interest in the field and concentrated study. It doesn't say anything about the validity of the concept, either for or against.
blauditore 10y ago
Regardless of whether it's justified or not, can someone explain how age discrimination could be proofed in such a case? Especially in this quickly evolving industry, Google may always find arguments like "candidate A had never worked with XY, but candidate B had, so we took B" to explain decisions.
- muse900 10y ago
  Am not a lawyer. My closest guess is that this lawfirm is going to provide an X amount of cases that passed screening etc and have relevant experience to the job as described in its advertisement. Then its really up to the Judge and the jury if such a case has a jury to decide.
- matt4077 10y ago
  The US legal system has this interesting "discovery phase" where the parties basically get to request all possibly relevant data from the other side. They'll try to find incriminating mails or other documents. They could also work with statistics. Google being google, they most certainly have enormous amounts of data on their recruitment process. I'd even bet Google has algorithms to uncover discrimination in its hiring – biases are bad for business, after all. They may not have had age discrimination on their radar, but whatever they have on race/gender/dog-vs-cat-owners should be easily adaptable.
throwawayforme 10y ago
TL;DR: Google often does not know how to hire senior people who are not luminaries, this screws people in their 40s. I think this happened to my wife, but her job category was not listed. When my small company was acquired by Google (and I had to interview to keep my job), we were forced to re-locate across the country from the east coast to Mountain View. My wife is a stats professor with tenure at a mid-tier university on the east coast, and she moved with our family. As its hard to get a tenured academic job, we found something at Google that sounded exciting to her. She applied to Google for a Sr. Data Scientist job, and passed the phone and on-site interviews with flying colors. However, she was rejected by the committee. The problem was that, at Google, the committee both decides if you passed your interview, and then decides on your job level. The job level is arrived at using past work experience. In my wife's case, the problem was that the committee deadlocked on how to level her. She had 5+ years of academic experience, and 5+ years of research experience (think national lab type stuff; research w/o teaching). However, she'd only briefly worked in industry many years ago between her MS and PhD. So rather than hire her, they told her to "go work someplace else for a year, then apply again". (direct quote, as relayed by her recruiter to me, as I referred her) If she was a fresh PhD, there would have been no problem. She would have been hired as a level 4, and everything would be fine. But given that they didn't know how to rate her experience, it was just easier for them to pass on her entirely. This tends to bias the hiring process to hiring younger folks, without experience. And, BTW, that's why I'm no longer at Google, and we're all back on the east coast.
- DannyBee 10y ago
  "In my wife's case, the problem was that the committee deadlocked on how to level her. She had 5+ years of academic experience, and 5+ years of research experience (think national lab type stuff; research w/o teaching). However, she'd only briefly worked in industry many years ago between her MS and PhD. So rather than hire her, they told her to "go work someplace else for a year, then apply again". (direct quote, as relayed by her recruiter to me, as I referred her)" (note, the below are all very very much personal opinions :P Most of what i'm going to talk about is all covered by a large number of books by various people, etc at this point.) First, sorry to hear about your experience. Hope you don't take the below personally. Having sat on google hiring committees (2-3 a week sometimes) for the better part of 11 years now, i'm going to say this is probably not accurate. Note that i only do SWE committees, though. I'm also not sure how you derived this view of what occurred (if you are going by what the recruiter said, know that most recruiters have a jaded view of committees who reject their candidates. Otherwise, i'd love to know what facts you have) . You seem to be assuming a lot of the reasons the committee said what it did. The answer you received is, in my view, usually the answer given when "we don't think they did well enough to hire them, but think that they may get there with practice". For example, in SWE world, this is usually what happens when committees feel like these people are on the wrong side of being able to design and implement stuff, but saw things in the interviews that made folks believe they may be able to get above that bar. (or put bluntly, not obviously worth the risk right now, may be worth the risk in the future). That isn't to say Google doesn't hire people who need mentoring in coding/etc, it's more "committee didn't feel it was a sure enough thing to take the risk". Note that there are second chance, etc committees if the recruiter felt the committee was wrong. Committees aren't always right, and they definitely aren't meant to be always right. The leveling decision is also completely independent of the hiring decision in just about all cases. There's some interesting history here, but the statement "both decides if you passed your interview, and then decides on your job level", is wrong now, and was wrong for pretty much everywhere but MTV for a long time. In any case, if what you say occurred, generally in SWE world the only reason they wouldn't make an offer at the lower level is if "they've not grown in 10000 years to a sane level of engineer, so we don't ever expect them to", or the person has said they wouldn't take it and so it would be pointless. In fact, most of the discussion that used to happen was "we think they are qualified for this lower level, is it worth discussion or have they said they wouldn't accept it" (because they have competing offers. The first seems ... not the case here, unless your wife did very badly (IE would have had to be two levels down). Sorry. So i find your experience very very strange, though i don't do data scientist committees. You started with: "Google often does not know how to hire senior people who are not luminaries, this screws people in their 40s." This is not right. IMHO, Google often tries not to hire people who have failed to grow to the level and skill set they want out of people with a large amount of experience or who want a senior position. But that's literally not about age (despite people wanting to claim it is), it's about growth vs experience. They do even try to account for what the experience was, etc. But usually it's the other way around - person wants senior position at Google, isn't qualified for it, complains google hates people who are older. Google would, in most cases, happily offer them a position they are qualified for, they just don't want that one (or google doesn't have such a need ATM). Personally, I wish that being XXX level engineer at some company mattered. But i've also met plenty of people who got promoted a lot just for surviving long enough, and couldn't code/design their way out of a paper bag despite being "senior principal engineer" or whatever. So i understand why they use interviews to try to gauge level instead. Past that, if you've spent 35 years in industry, and can't code/do algorithms/design/or any measurable metric better than a person fresh out of college, and aren't more self directed, etc, than the fresh out, it may not make sense to hire you. But again, that's still not about age. Because the person fresh out of college could be 70. I'd still say "hire that person", because they still have potential. The person who has 35 years of experience and still not grown is a known quantity, and that known quantity is not above the bar.

69 points by howawaygoog 10y ago

just got email for this, I did interview for Google and I'm over 40, (wonder how they got my info). I passed the interview but was shut down at the committee, very much doubt that age was a factor.

orionblastar 10y ago
If you list years on your resume they can guess your age. I wouldn't mind working for Google, I am over 40 too.
ChuckMcM 10y ago
Always an interesting choice, the upside if you join is you get some money if the suit is settled, I presume the only downside is that you pretty much won't ever be employed there ever if they have paid out a legal settlement check to you. (It turns out it isn't illegal not to hire based on previously being sued by someone). I doubt they would be forced to hire you if they settle. (which would be a huge downside in my opinion, you'd go to work at a company with them already hating you for working there.) So I guess it really comes down to whether you think there is any chance at all that they would ever hire you. I doubt anyone would hold participating in the suit against you, it isn't like you started it.
- hkmurakami 10y ago
  That's fascinating considering we don't have that kind of negative consequence for participating in shareholder lawsuits.
  - akud 10y ago
    It makes me wonder if that's due to the relative power of capital vs labor. Is that what you were getting at?
- ryandrake 10y ago
  At no point in the future will you be any younger. So if you think you are not being hired because they are discriminating based on age, then there is no downside to participating in the settlement--you won't be hired either way. If you think there is a chance you will be hired in the future, then they are not discriminating based on age.
  - sgift 10y ago
    This assumes that the age discrimination is an absolute criteria (over age x? Out) and not one of several factors (e.g. a tie breaker if you have multiple broadly similar applicants).
  - Klockan 10y ago
    I have seen plenty of older people getting hired at Google so it is obviously possible.
- codeddesign 10y ago
  But here lies the problem..suing simply for the sake of suing. He clearly stated that he did feel that he was discriminated nor did he make it apparent that his life was dramatically altered from him not getting the job. And yet, you encourage him to sue anyways purely for the sake that he may get a little cash. There are legitimate lawsuits in which people's lives have been dramatically affected, and then there are the plethora of scum cases in which people are looking for quick cash. People say that Trump will take American down..no, it's people's unethical mindset that they feel they can take advantage of our basic right to sue for compensation when an aggresses circumstance has occurred.
  - cjhopman 10y ago
    You don't have to feel discriminated against to be discriminated against. Corporations (and individual people) should pay for minor abuses against large groups (typically people already pay for large abuses against minor groups).
- pzh 10y ago
  > It turns out it isn't illegal not to hire based on previously being sued by someone. I thought there were laws to prevent Google from retaliating against somebody who sued them, and it would be illegal for them to not hire you on that basis alone...
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    Retaliation protection is about protecting you from being fired for bringing a protected labor suit. That doesn't apply to hiring. And as I understand it there is nothing wrong with actively discriminating against people who didn't go to a preferred university[1] as that is not a protected class. [1] And as with diversity (or any discrimination) it reduces the chance that you'll employ that really star employee.
jcims 10y ago
I got hired over 40, no problems. Left six months later for personal reasons, hoping to get back in. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- poikniok 10y ago
  What do you mean hoping to get back in? My general understanding of Google is that if you leave on decent terms you can get back to your previous role without having to interview again as long as you do it within a year or two, is that applicable here?
  - jcims 10y ago
    Yes! Just don't want to count my chickens before they have job offers :)
jedmeyers 10y ago
I've read that being rejected at a committee level happens relatively infrequent. Did they hint to what might be the reason for rejection at such a late stage?
- googlerejection 10y ago
  I applied for an SWE position @ Google back in 2015. I was also rejected at the committee level, the reason was that I didn't have the amount of domain knowledge they wanted; in my case it was estimation theory/signal processing.
- mike_hearn 10y ago
  It happens all the time. The first couple of interviews are just a phone screen. After the on-sites the packet goes to a committee, always, which makes the final decision having read all the feedbacks from all the interviews. The hiring committee isn't some last moment check/balance, it's the primary way hiring decisions are made. Or at least that's how it worked when I was an interviewer at Google.
  - blauditore 10y ago
    When I applied one year ago, my recruiter reviewed feedback of on-site interviews before passing it to the committee (which she decided not to do in my case). From what I understand, reruiters are rated based on the quality of candidates they pass to the hiring committee, so they have an incentive to only let the best pass.
    - awaythrow101 10y ago
      From my understanding, the recruiter has the option of outright rejecting you after your interview without passing it on to the hiring committee. Generally if your feedback is even vaguely positive, they'll pass it on though, so if you get rejected by the recruiter, it's usually pretty cut and dry. This may vary depending on the office involved.
- Klockan 10y ago
tr1ck5t3r 10y ago
Age is a factor. Young people whilst educated highly are still very naive when it comes to thinking through the implications of their actions, so they are easy to manipulate and have them produce some nefarious dual use tech. In fact I would go so far to suggest that someone in their 40's has learnt enough about the ways of the world to know alot better the differences in the rights and wrongs of the world. In other words, you are set up to fail if you follow the traditional educational route. However its also worth pointing out, the age old problem of spotting giftedness. Einstein was mediocre at school and during his early year's at Uni, in fact it wasnt until his 30's that he started to come up with decent theories, so alot of companies hinder their growth & innovation potential by recruiting youngsters fresh out of an educational establishment.
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  I vouched for this because I believe it is a relevant contribution that falls within community guidelines, even if applying such theories in hiring decisions may open one to legal liability. Many of the posts in your history show up as dead, you may be getting autokilled and only getting replies when someone vouches.

wonko1 10y ago

Based on my experience of Google interviews, they seem like one of the companies least likely to discriminate based on age. Their interviews tend to be very tech/algorithm focused. To the point where they disregard almost everything else. I would have thought, fast and loose early stage startups would be far more likely to discriminate.

fjdlwlv 10y ago
People who have more years are expected to show either "trajectory" or have a compelling excuse. People with fewer years are judged by potential. Interestingly, there is research that claims that in businesses women are more often judged by last performance, while men are judged more by potential.

vemv 10y ago

Why would to want to work for an organsisation that (supposedly) discriminates against you anyway?

cjhopman 10y ago
Why would you want to eat at a restaurant that discriminates against you anyway? Why would you want to go to a school that discriminates against you anyway? Why would you want to ride a bus that discriminates against you anyway?
- vemv 10y ago
  I'd be happy to not use those services. Generally, commerce/work is a voluntary exchange between two willing parts, not a right. Most forms of real discrimination have become extinct; now a significant % of cases (at least in the IT world) it just a bunch of complainers.
  - Beltiras 10y ago
    Sounds like privilege talking. I'm a middle-aged white male. I try to stay mindful of my privilege when others explain perceived wrongs.
    - golemotron 10y ago
      It takes extraordinary privilege to even conceive of the idea of privilege. Everyone else just lives their lives.
      - grzm 10y ago
        A similar comparison can be made with respect to a lot of specialist fields or esoterica. For people using the internet as consumers, concepts like the CAP theorem aren't going to be something they would just stumble across: it would take interest in the field and concentrated study. It doesn't say anything about the validity of the concept, either for or against.

blauditore 10y ago

Regardless of whether it's justified or not, can someone explain how age discrimination could be proofed in such a case? Especially in this quickly evolving industry, Google may always find arguments like "candidate A had never worked with XY, but candidate B had, so we took B" to explain decisions.

muse900 10y ago
Am not a lawyer. My closest guess is that this lawfirm is going to provide an X amount of cases that passed screening etc and have relevant experience to the job as described in its advertisement. Then its really up to the Judge and the jury if such a case has a jury to decide.
matt4077 10y ago
The US legal system has this interesting "discovery phase" where the parties basically get to request all possibly relevant data from the other side. They'll try to find incriminating mails or other documents. They could also work with statistics. Google being google, they most certainly have enormous amounts of data on their recruitment process. I'd even bet Google has algorithms to uncover discrimination in its hiring – biases are bad for business, after all. They may not have had age discrimination on their radar, but whatever they have on race/gender/dog-vs-cat-owners should be easily adaptable.

throwawayforme 10y ago

TL;DR: Google often does not know how to hire senior people who are not luminaries, this screws people in their 40s. I think this happened to my wife, but her job category was not listed. When my small company was acquired by Google (and I had to interview to keep my job), we were forced to re-locate across the country from the east coast to Mountain View. My wife is a stats professor with tenure at a mid-tier university on the east coast, and she moved with our family. As its hard to get a tenured academic job, we found something at Google that sounded exciting to her. She applied to Google for a Sr. Data Scientist job, and passed the phone and on-site interviews with flying colors. However, she was rejected by the committee. The problem was that, at Google, the committee both decides if you passed your interview, and then decides on your job level. The job level is arrived at using past work experience. In my wife's case, the problem was that the committee deadlocked on how to level her. She had 5+ years of academic experience, and 5+ years of research experience (think national lab type stuff; research w/o teaching). However, she'd only briefly worked in industry many years ago between her MS and PhD. So rather than hire her, they told her to "go work someplace else for a year, then apply again". (direct quote, as relayed by her recruiter to me, as I referred her) If she was a fresh PhD, there would have been no problem. She would have been hired as a level 4, and everything would be fine. But given that they didn't know how to rate her experience, it was just easier for them to pass on her entirely. This tends to bias the hiring process to hiring younger folks, without experience. And, BTW, that's why I'm no longer at Google, and we're all back on the east coast.

DannyBee 10y ago
"In my wife's case, the problem was that the committee deadlocked on how to level her. She had 5+ years of academic experience, and 5+ years of research experience (think national lab type stuff; research w/o teaching). However, she'd only briefly worked in industry many years ago between her MS and PhD. So rather than hire her, they told her to "go work someplace else for a year, then apply again". (direct quote, as relayed by her recruiter to me, as I referred her)" (note, the below are all very very much personal opinions :P Most of what i'm going to talk about is all covered by a large number of books by various people, etc at this point.) First, sorry to hear about your experience. Hope you don't take the below personally. Having sat on google hiring committees (2-3 a week sometimes) for the better part of 11 years now, i'm going to say this is probably not accurate. Note that i only do SWE committees, though. I'm also not sure how you derived this view of what occurred (if you are going by what the recruiter said, know that most recruiters have a jaded view of committees who reject their candidates. Otherwise, i'd love to know what facts you have) . You seem to be assuming a lot of the reasons the committee said what it did. The answer you received is, in my view, usually the answer given when "we don't think they did well enough to hire them, but think that they may get there with practice". For example, in SWE world, this is usually what happens when committees feel like these people are on the wrong side of being able to design and implement stuff, but saw things in the interviews that made folks believe they may be able to get above that bar. (or put bluntly, not obviously worth the risk right now, may be worth the risk in the future). That isn't to say Google doesn't hire people who need mentoring in coding/etc, it's more "committee didn't feel it was a sure enough thing to take the risk". Note that there are second chance, etc committees if the recruiter felt the committee was wrong. Committees aren't always right, and they definitely aren't meant to be always right. The leveling decision is also completely independent of the hiring decision in just about all cases. There's some interesting history here, but the statement "both decides if you passed your interview, and then decides on your job level", is wrong now, and was wrong for pretty much everywhere but MTV for a long time. In any case, if what you say occurred, generally in SWE world the only reason they wouldn't make an offer at the lower level is if "they've not grown in 10000 years to a sane level of engineer, so we don't ever expect them to", or the person has said they wouldn't take it and so it would be pointless. In fact, most of the discussion that used to happen was "we think they are qualified for this lower level, is it worth discussion or have they said they wouldn't accept it" (because they have competing offers. The first seems ... not the case here, unless your wife did very badly (IE would have had to be two levels down). Sorry. So i find your experience very very strange, though i don't do data scientist committees. You started with: "Google often does not know how to hire senior people who are not luminaries, this screws people in their 40s." This is not right. IMHO, Google often tries not to hire people who have failed to grow to the level and skill set they want out of people with a large amount of experience or who want a senior position. But that's literally not about age (despite people wanting to claim it is), it's about growth vs experience. They do even try to account for what the experience was, etc. But usually it's the other way around - person wants senior position at Google, isn't qualified for it, complains google hates people who are older. Google would, in most cases, happily offer them a position they are qualified for, they just don't want that one (or google doesn't have such a need ATM). Personally, I wish that being XXX level engineer at some company mattered. But i've also met plenty of people who got promoted a lot just for surviving long enough, and couldn't code/design their way out of a paper bag despite being "senior principal engineer" or whatever. So i understand why they use interviews to try to gauge level instead. Past that, if you've spent 35 years in industry, and can't code/do algorithms/design/or any measurable metric better than a person fresh out of college, and aren't more self directed, etc, than the fresh out, it may not make sense to hire you. But again, that's still not about age. Because the person fresh out of college could be 70. I'd still say "hire that person", because they still have potential. The person who has 35 years of experience and still not grown is a known quantity, and that known quantity is not above the bar.