According to the Wall Street Journal, a case Google has been trying to get thrown out of court regarding the firing of an employee is back on the docket. The California Supreme Court upheld an appellate court ruling that the facts of Reid vs. Google justified a trial on the merits. According to WSJ:
“Mr. Reid, a high-tech veteran whose resume before Google includes leading a team that helped develop the first Internet firewall software, alleged that executives called him “an old man” and that his ideas were “too old to matter,” among other things. Among the evidence in the case are emails sent by Mr. Reid’s boss before his termination. In one email, the boss wrote to Google co-founder Sergey Brin, saying he was “looking for a senior Director (note I did not capitalize Sr.)” to replace Mr. Reid.”
Ouch. Under the ‘stray remarks’ doctrine, which dates to a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case, Google attempted to have the case thrown out. Reid claims that he was dqaily put down and disparaged by Google employees, particularly Urs Hölzle, now Sr. VP of Operations, according to Search Engine Land
Reid alleged that Hölzle and other employees made derogatory age-related remarks to Reid while he was employed at Google. According to Reid, Hölzle 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.” Hölzle allegedly made age-related comments to Reid “every few weeks.” Other coworkers 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 (compact disc) jewel case office placard should be an “LP” instead of a “CD.”
According to the court documents,
In a review of Reid’s first year’s job performance (his only written performance review while employed at Google), Rosing described Reid as having “an extraordinarily broad range of knowledge concerning Operations, Engineering in general and an aptitude and orientation towards operational and IT issues.” Rosing noted that Reid “project[ed] confidence when dealing with fast changing situations,” “ha[d] an excellent attitude about what ‘OPS’ and ‘Support’ mean,” and was “very intelligent,” “creative,” “a terrific problem solver,” and that the “vast majority of Ops [ran] great.” Rosing gave Reid a performance rating indicating he “consistently [met] expectations.”
Reid was encouraged by upper level execs to aply for another job with Google, but emails were circulated internally prepping possibloe interviewers and stating Reid was not to be hired:
“Vice-president of business operations Shona Brown wrote to Rosing and human resources director Stacy Sullivan, asserting, “you should make sure I am appropriately prepped. My line at the moment is that there is no role for him in the HR organization.” Sullivan responded: “Seems [Reid’s] first interest is to continue his work on the college programs he’s been working on. . . . He’ll explore that option first with both of you. . . . I propose [Brown] . . . meets with [Reid] [on February 24] and lets him know there’s no role [for him] in her org. . . . I’ve talked with [chief financial officer George] Reyes live, he will not have an option for [Reid]. . . . [T]his is The Company Decision.” Sullivan concluded: “We’ll all agree on the job elimination angle. . . .””
Other portions of Google emails revealed in the court papers indicate that Reid was fired because of his pay-grade, that keeping him on contributed ‘bloat’ and that his age made him easy to replace. Looks bad for Google, since Reid is expected to be likable on the stand.