This case has nothing really to do with the claim of the named plaintiff. If being brushed off after a brief interview, etc. and similar skimpy items were the c

This case has nothing really to do with the claim of the named plaintiff. If being brushed off after a brief interview, etc. and similar skimpy items were the criteria for filing a claim for age discrimination, the courts could be loaded with such claims. There is basically zero evidence from the interaction noted in the article to make for a sustainable claim of this type. No, this is all about class action procedures. 1. As in most such cases, the named plaintiff is there only to satisfy the technical requirement that a representative be named to represent the class. 2. The underlying claim, then, in the absence of any direct proof of discrimination in any given case, is based on an "effects" theory: Google stats show that it has an average workforce whose age is considerably lower than what other stats show is the average age of computer programmers; this "proves" that latent discrimination is happening; ergo, the class is entitled to massive damages because Google's hiring practices single out older people and treat them unfairly by rejecting them as job applicants on unlawful grounds. 3. Google recently settled an age discrimination case in which there appears to have been real evidence that they treated an older worker unfairly. This case now seeks to take the evidence in that one instance, combine it with stats evidencing a young workforce at Google, and hope this is enough to justify the class action claim. 4. This is as flimsy a basis on which to sue as one might imagine but its point is to try to pry open Google's confidential employment files to hope to find real evidence somewhere in the mix. In other words, it is a fishing expedition. No particular sympathy here for Google. I am sure it does treat older workers unfairly at some level. The tech industry does this across the board. But that does not make this lawsuit something attractive. It is a stick-up suit, pure and simple, from all surface indicators. Given how flimsy it actually is, I predict it will go nowhere in the long term. There may yet be a potent case lurking against Google over its policies. This just is not it.