5 ms·

California Supreme Court: age bias case against Google can move forward

46 points by grellas 16y ago

houseabsolute 16y ago
It would be interesting to see what exactly Urs said about this guy, in what context, what this guy's personality is, etc. Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while without a settled meaning, I think basically is a way of saying that an old person is acting childish or unprofessional. If that's so, one easy way not to run afoul of the law is to say that the person acts childishly or unprofessionally. Of course, you should also document concrete examples of the same. For example, if the person in question frequently shoots down proposals in meetings by saying the moral equivalent of, "That's not how we did it back at Bell Labs," just say that. Also, saying the guy's ideas are "too old to matter" is a dick move IMO. If you want to abandon rational explanations for why you don't like someone's ideas, just say, "We're not going to do that, end of discussion." No need to get personal. This goes back to my personal doctrine of trying to say exactly what I mean. I find that some people try to solve problems by saying things designed to get a person to do what they want, but without being direct about it. On more than one occasion I've observed this has led to hurt feelings where I think the direct approach -- just ask for what you want -- would not. For example, if your coworker bothers you while you are trying to work, "Hey, could we talk later? I am trying to work," would probably be received a lot better than, "Damn, dude, you talk a lot." This example is contrived but I have observed concrete cases not too different from this a number of times. Anyway, hopefully no one reading this article is stressing out about not having a demographically appropriate workforce, because it seems very unlikely that alone will be enough to get you into trouble.
- paul 16y ago
  It'd difficult for me to imagine anyone at Google (at least in that era) using the term "fuddy-duddy". None of the quotes sound like anything I ever heard or over-heard, which of course doesn't prove anything, but it's not the culture that I ever observed.
  - grellas 16y ago
    When things reach a lawsuit stage, they often take on a surreal air and become increasingly disconnected from what is likely to have happened in fact. Lawyers embellish, witnesses develop convenient memories, and those with a motive or agenda will tend to shade their testimony in ways that promote their case (on one side or the other), whether or not this conforms with exactly what might have happened. I don't mean by this that most people intentionally perjure themselves (they usually don't). I mean only that, once it all goes through the lawsuit grinder, what emerges may or may not be recognizable to those who actually went through the experience or who know the environment. Often, it isn't. Just a sad fact of life of what happens when people start fighting in the courts.
    - todayiamme 16y ago
      That might be the case, but another thing that might be at work over here is that people do have biases/prejudices that they are unwilling to expose in front of others. Someone smart enough can easily hide their real feelings on a subject in most situations, but as soon as they get annoyed, threatened or angry it starts to come tumbling out. Perhaps, over here he simply encountered a few people with unresolved issues and got a raw deal because of it. On the other hand, this happened when Google was relatively young an interesting question is, what happens in large organizations? When you hire people they tend to bring their baggage in them. So, now the question becomes how can a culture be created that allows people to transcend their prejudices? I just don't know.
  - chc 16y ago
    It's hard for me to imagine anyone using the term who couldn't be called one himself. It's really old-fashioned language. "Dinosaur" or "old coot" are more what I'd imagine someone my age saying to communicate the same idea.
    - snprbob86 16y ago
      I don't know what your age is, but as a 20-something, I can confirm that "Dinosaur" is an extremely popular term for this in my circles. It's particularly common among my Microsoftie friends to refer to executive leadership. However, I've personally starting using the term "Crustacean" to refer to the dinosaurs who just refuse to go extinct.
- patio11 16y ago
  demographically appropriate workforce This is a wonderful, terrifying neologism that I haven't heard before. Has it entered common use yet?
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
- kscaldef 16y ago
  > Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while without a settled meaning, I think basically is a way of saying that an old person is acting childish or unprofessional Hmm... that's almost exactly the opposite of what I think of when I hear that term. To me it conjures up someone who is overly serious, doesn't have any fun, and doesn't want to let anyone else have fun either.
  - TheSOB88 16y ago
    Those aren't mutually exclusive... people trying to be overly serious can't have childish (selfish/ignorant) or unprofessional behavior?
gscott 16y ago
"Google asserted in court documents that Reid was fired because the program he headed was being eliminated and because of poor performance." Hopefully the Google Wave crew is not reading this. (some sarcasm intended, if Google started laying off people for working on a project that ended up being eliminated then employees would be fearful to be placed on anything not established.)
- chc 16y ago
  That's "and," not "or." Wave team members don't need to worry unless they suck.
  - uxp 16y ago
    Specifically regarding Wave, all the information from Google states that they loved it, and will most likely continue using it internally, which they did for months before it was announced. The technology they developed to build the product is also being slowly integrated into their existing products (GIS's redesign seems like it took some of the ideas of wave) as well as being available for integration in new products. Regarding this article, this was 6 to 8 years ago, and Google didn't have its 'persona' it has now. It was still a company struggling to gain market share and I would imagine they wanted developers that strived to push the boundaries of what the web could do. Reid very well could have not had that same goal, being an older generation who already had an ingrained idea of what the internet was and was unwilling to work towards a more dynamic internet. This is all my personal speculation based on personal assumptions, however.
jan_g 16y ago
This case is interesting to me, because I've always been under impression that in USA you can hire and fire whomever you want. Which is not the case here in Europe, where workers are protected like endangered species if they're on permanent contract.
- whyenot 16y ago
  At will employment[1] gives you a lot of freedom when it comes to hiring and firing, but, there are some restrictions[2]. For example, you can't fire all the women in your organization just because you don't want any women working for you. In practice, it's usually not difficult to come up with a legitimate reason to fire someone. For example, there is a whole industry of computer forensics consults who for a relatively small fee will "probe" (search the target's work computer and network logs for things that shouldn't be there) an employee to come up with a legitimate reason for firing them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
- gojomo 16y ago
  In the USA, 'permanent' employees not covered by a union agreement are generally 'at will', which means the employment can begin and end for any reason, or no reason at all -- except for discriminatory reasons, based on certain characteristics listed in various laws. The factors that can't be considered are 'protected classes': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class So when a decision based on one of these classes could be alleged, employment changes/terminations can become riskier. There's no right to continuing employment, or direct severance/buyout payments, as seems to be the case in some European jurisdictions. But when more of your employees wind up collecting state-administered unemployment compensation, your payments into that program escalate. (Anyone not fired for specific misdeeds is eligible for unemployment compensation, for a limited period, while actively seeking other work.)
- GBond 16y ago
  Generally speaking, U.S. States' regulations on how corporations can fire/hire employees favor the Corps. However, the U.S. is also highly litigious in the civil courts. If you feel you've been wronged, there are a multitude of ways to bring up a lawsuit... and plenty of lawyers who would be willing to take your case (especially with "tens of millions of dollars" of denied stock options on the line).
tkahn6 16y ago
"[At Google,] young 20-year-olds don't necessarily see a place for tremendously talented, experienced 50- and 60-year-olds." - Reid's Lawyer Definitely. Rob Pike and Ken Thompson are neither talented nor experienced.
- jedc 16y ago
  Don't forget Vint Cerf!
  - hubb 16y ago
    Peter Norvig is certainly quite the young upstart.
- sp332 16y ago
  I guess Guido van Rossum doesn't count either :-)
fuzzythinker 16y ago
I think this is actually bad for older job seekers no matter what the outcome is, just because of awareness. The next time a skilled but borderline elder candidate applies to a younger company, the company will probably have a higher chance to pass on the candidate.
- Daniel_Newby 16y ago
  Especially if the candidate's name is Brian Reid. He must not be planning on ever working again.
  - maukdaddy 16y ago
    If he wins the suit he won't have to.
  - alanstorm 16y ago
    Cribbing from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist)), he's five years away from the traditional US retirement age of 65, and he was a director level executive at DEC. I imagine he played the money game long enough at DEC that he's in fine shape, even without his teaching income.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
countersignaler 16y ago
Obviously any kind of discrimination sucks, but I have a hard time getting worked up over age discrimination. It is not like sex or race where you are hampered from the start and never have a chance to show your potential. Everyone is young then gets old. Systematic age discrimination just creates a market opportunity for businesses willing to hire old people. You could say the same opportunity exists in the sex and race cases, but they have the potential to be self-fulfilling prejudices--people locked out of the workforce from the start--whereas the age one doesnt really perpetuate itself. signed entitled young white male

46 points by grellas 16y ago

It would be interesting to see what exactly Urs said about this guy, in what context, what this guy's personality is, etc. Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while without a settled meaning, I think basically is a way of saying that an old person is acting childish or unprofessional. If that's so, one easy way not to run afoul of the law is to say that the person acts childishly or unprofessionally. Of course, you should also document concrete examples of the same. For example, if the person in question frequently shoots down proposals in meetings by saying the moral equivalent of, "That's not how we did it back at Bell Labs," just say that. Also, saying the guy's ideas are "too old to matter" is a dick move IMO. If you want to abandon rational explanations for why you don't like someone's ideas, just say, "We're not going to do that, end of discussion." No need to get personal. This goes back to my personal doctrine of trying to say exactly what I mean. I find that some people try to solve problems by saying things designed to get a person to do what they want, but without being direct about it. On more than one occasion I've observed this has led to hurt feelings where I think the direct approach -- just ask for what you want -- would not. For example, if your coworker bothers you while you are trying to work, "Hey, could we talk later? I am trying to work," would probably be received a lot better than, "Damn, dude, you talk a lot." This example is contrived but I have observed concrete cases not too different from this a number of times. Anyway, hopefully no one reading this article is stressing out about not having a demographically appropriate workforce, because it seems very unlikely that alone will be enough to get you into trouble.

paul 16y ago
It'd difficult for me to imagine anyone at Google (at least in that era) using the term "fuddy-duddy". None of the quotes sound like anything I ever heard or over-heard, which of course doesn't prove anything, but it's not the culture that I ever observed.
- grellas 16y ago
  When things reach a lawsuit stage, they often take on a surreal air and become increasingly disconnected from what is likely to have happened in fact. Lawyers embellish, witnesses develop convenient memories, and those with a motive or agenda will tend to shade their testimony in ways that promote their case (on one side or the other), whether or not this conforms with exactly what might have happened. I don't mean by this that most people intentionally perjure themselves (they usually don't). I mean only that, once it all goes through the lawsuit grinder, what emerges may or may not be recognizable to those who actually went through the experience or who know the environment. Often, it isn't. Just a sad fact of life of what happens when people start fighting in the courts.
  - todayiamme 16y ago
    That might be the case, but another thing that might be at work over here is that people do have biases/prejudices that they are unwilling to expose in front of others. Someone smart enough can easily hide their real feelings on a subject in most situations, but as soon as they get annoyed, threatened or angry it starts to come tumbling out. Perhaps, over here he simply encountered a few people with unresolved issues and got a raw deal because of it. On the other hand, this happened when Google was relatively young an interesting question is, what happens in large organizations? When you hire people they tend to bring their baggage in them. So, now the question becomes how can a culture be created that allows people to transcend their prejudices? I just don't know.
- chc 16y ago
  It's hard for me to imagine anyone using the term who couldn't be called one himself. It's really old-fashioned language. "Dinosaur" or "old coot" are more what I'd imagine someone my age saying to communicate the same idea.
  - snprbob86 16y ago
    I don't know what your age is, but as a 20-something, I can confirm that "Dinosaur" is an extremely popular term for this in my circles. It's particularly common among my Microsoftie friends to refer to executive leadership. However, I've personally starting using the term "Crustacean" to refer to the dinosaurs who just refuse to go extinct.
patio11 16y ago
demographically appropriate workforce This is a wonderful, terrifying neologism that I haven't heard before. Has it entered common use yet?
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
kscaldef 16y ago
> Being an "old fuddy-duddy," while without a settled meaning, I think basically is a way of saying that an old person is acting childish or unprofessional Hmm... that's almost exactly the opposite of what I think of when I hear that term. To me it conjures up someone who is overly serious, doesn't have any fun, and doesn't want to let anyone else have fun either.
- TheSOB88 16y ago
  Those aren't mutually exclusive... people trying to be overly serious can't have childish (selfish/ignorant) or unprofessional behavior?

gscott 16y ago

"Google asserted in court documents that Reid was fired because the program he headed was being eliminated and because of poor performance." Hopefully the Google Wave crew is not reading this. (some sarcasm intended, if Google started laying off people for working on a project that ended up being eliminated then employees would be fearful to be placed on anything not established.)

chc 16y ago
That's "and," not "or." Wave team members don't need to worry unless they suck.
- uxp 16y ago
  Specifically regarding Wave, all the information from Google states that they loved it, and will most likely continue using it internally, which they did for months before it was announced. The technology they developed to build the product is also being slowly integrated into their existing products (GIS's redesign seems like it took some of the ideas of wave) as well as being available for integration in new products. Regarding this article, this was 6 to 8 years ago, and Google didn't have its 'persona' it has now. It was still a company struggling to gain market share and I would imagine they wanted developers that strived to push the boundaries of what the web could do. Reid very well could have not had that same goal, being an older generation who already had an ingrained idea of what the internet was and was unwilling to work towards a more dynamic internet. This is all my personal speculation based on personal assumptions, however.

jan_g 16y ago

This case is interesting to me, because I've always been under impression that in USA you can hire and fire whomever you want. Which is not the case here in Europe, where workers are protected like endangered species if they're on permanent contract.

whyenot 16y ago
At will employment[1] gives you a lot of freedom when it comes to hiring and firing, but, there are some restrictions[2]. For example, you can't fire all the women in your organization just because you don't want any women working for you. In practice, it's usually not difficult to come up with a legitimate reason to fire someone. For example, there is a whole industry of computer forensics consults who for a relatively small fee will "probe" (search the target's work computer and network logs for things that shouldn't be there) an employee to come up with a legitimate reason for firing them. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class
gojomo 16y ago
In the USA, 'permanent' employees not covered by a union agreement are generally 'at will', which means the employment can begin and end for any reason, or no reason at all -- except for discriminatory reasons, based on certain characteristics listed in various laws. The factors that can't be considered are 'protected classes': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_class So when a decision based on one of these classes could be alleged, employment changes/terminations can become riskier. There's no right to continuing employment, or direct severance/buyout payments, as seems to be the case in some European jurisdictions. But when more of your employees wind up collecting state-administered unemployment compensation, your payments into that program escalate. (Anyone not fired for specific misdeeds is eligible for unemployment compensation, for a limited period, while actively seeking other work.)
GBond 16y ago
Generally speaking, U.S. States' regulations on how corporations can fire/hire employees favor the Corps. However, the U.S. is also highly litigious in the civil courts. If you feel you've been wronged, there are a multitude of ways to bring up a lawsuit... and plenty of lawyers who would be willing to take your case (especially with "tens of millions of dollars" of denied stock options on the line).

tkahn6 16y ago

"[At Google,] young 20-year-olds don't necessarily see a place for tremendously talented, experienced 50- and 60-year-olds." - Reid's Lawyer Definitely. Rob Pike and Ken Thompson are neither talented nor experienced.

jedc 16y ago
Don't forget Vint Cerf!
- hubb 16y ago
  Peter Norvig is certainly quite the young upstart.
sp332 16y ago
I guess Guido van Rossum doesn't count either :-)

fuzzythinker 16y ago

I think this is actually bad for older job seekers no matter what the outcome is, just because of awareness. The next time a skilled but borderline elder candidate applies to a younger company, the company will probably have a higher chance to pass on the candidate.

Daniel_Newby 16y ago
Especially if the candidate's name is Brian Reid. He must not be planning on ever working again.
- maukdaddy 16y ago
  If he wins the suit he won't have to.
- alanstorm 16y ago
  Cribbing from Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Reid_(computer_scientist)), he's five years away from the traditional US retirement age of 65, and he was a director level executive at DEC. I imagine he played the money game long enough at DEC that he's in fine shape, even without his teaching income.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

countersignaler 16y ago

Obviously any kind of discrimination sucks, but I have a hard time getting worked up over age discrimination. It is not like sex or race where you are hampered from the start and never have a chance to show your potential. Everyone is young then gets old. Systematic age discrimination just creates a market opportunity for businesses willing to hire old people. You could say the same opportunity exists in the sex and race cases, but they have the potential to be self-fulfilling prejudices--people locked out of the workforce from the start--whereas the age one doesnt really perpetuate itself. signed entitled young white male