Google Omits Age from Diversity Goals

Google_Mountain_View_campus_dinosaur_skeleton_'Stan'

Something is missing from diversity statistics posted online  this week by Google – information about the age of its workforce.

Google posted statistics showing a workforce that is (surprise!) incredibly non-diverse in gender and race.  Google’s workforce is  70 percent male and 30 percent female. And Google’s workforce is 61 percent white  and 30 percent Asian. Only three percent of Google’s workforce are Hispanic, two percent are African-American and four percent are described as “two or more races.”

The numbers apparently were compiled as part of a report that major U.S. employers must file with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  The EEOC report collects information about sex and race.  Companies are not required to make the information public.

Google  chose to publicly divulge  the damning figures about its overwhelmingly white male workforce, but did not reveal the ages of its employees.  Isn’t that a statistic that Google deems important in terms of measuring a diverse workforce?  Just how  many workers at Google are over the age of 40, the age at which workers fall under the protection of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967.

One can only speculate why Google has ignored age in its discussion of diversity. Possibly the numbers are drastically askew and Google fears an age discrimination lawsuit.  It’s not exactly a secret that  Silicon Valley generally and Google, in particular,  celebrate a youth culture.

A few years ago, Google settled a lawsuit alleging age discrimination by Brian Reid, who was hired by Google in a senior tech role when he was age 54 .  Reid  left after two years when he was re-assigned to head up a new program with no staff that was quickly phased out..  Reid said supervisors and co-workers at Google made  derogatory comments about his age, stating that he was not a “cultural fit” for the company, that he was “an old man,” “slow,” “sluggish,” “lethargic” and “an old fuddy-duddy” who “lacked energy.” Co-workers allegedly joked that Reid’s CD (compact disc) jewel case office placard should be an “LP” (which stands for long-playing record). The lawsuit was reportedly settled after the California Court of Appeals said Reid had presented undisputed evidence supported a prima facie case of age discrimination.

According to a story in  the New Republic, age thirty is over-the-hill in Silicon Valley, where “[t]ech luminaries who otherwise pride themselves on their dedication to meritocracy don’t think twice about deriding the not-actually-old.”

The  diversity statistics provided by Google are even worse than they first appear. Of the 30 percent of Google’s workforce who are female, only about 18 percent work in professional tech jobs.  Only one percent of blacks and two percent of Hispanics who work at Google work in prize tech jobs.

Of the company’s “leadership” team, 79 percent are male and 21 percent are female;  72 percent are white; 23 percent are Asian; two percent are black; 1.5 percent are identified as “two or more races” and one percent are Hispanic.

 

 

Is Google Really America’s Best Employer?

best employer

Note: Google has settled the case out of court; Brian Reid’s lawyer declines to say for how much America’s “best employer” was forced to shell out to settle the age discrimination case.  PGB

Google was ranked number one this week in Fortune Magazine’s “100 Best Companies to Work for,”  and it does seem to be a great place to work  — unless you remember a time when the only “search engine” was the card catalog at your local library.

Google is battling an age discrimination lawsuit brought by a former executive, Brian Reid, who was hired by Google in 2002 as director of operations and engineering.  After two years, Reid, then 54, was fired  by Google.

Reid has a Ph.D. in computer science and is a former associate professor of electrical engineering at Stanford University. He managed a team that built one of the first Internet search engines at AltaVista.

In the lawsuit, Reid said supervisors and co-workers at Google made numerous derogatory comments about his age, stating that he was not a “cultural fit” for the company, that he was “an old man,” “slow,” “sluggish,” “lethargic” and “an old fuddy-duddy” who “lacked energy.” Co-workers allegedly joked that Reid’s CD (compact disc) jewel case office placard should be an “LP” instead of a “CD.”

Reid also offered statistical evidence of age discrimination at Google, evidence Google demoted him to a nonviable position before terminating him, and that Google advanced changing rationales for his termination.

The trial court initially dismissed Reid’s lawsuit, after Google filed a motion for summary judgment.  But Reid appealed and the lawsuit was reinstated by the California Court of Appeals, which said undisputed evidence supported a prima facie case of age discrimination. Google appealed that decision to the California Supreme Court, which also ruled in Reid’s favor.

Google argued that the derogatory comments made by staffers about Reid should be rejected under the judicial “stray remarks doctrine,” and that slurs like “fuddy-duddy” are insufficient to show that Google’s asserted reason for firing Reid was a pretext for age discrimination.

The California Supreme Court agreed with the appeals court’s determination that the categorical exclusion of evidence by the application of the “stray remarks doctrine” was unnecessary and might lead to unfair results in Reid’s case.  The Court said the so-called “stray remarks” should be evaluated in combination with all of the evidence.  [See Reid v. Google, Inc., 50 Cal.4th 512 (2010)]

The only written performance review of Reid by Google was positive. His supervisor, Wayne 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.”  Reid was praised for “project[ed] confidence when dealing with fast changing situations,” and being “very intelligent,” “creative,” “a terrific problem solver.”

But Reid’s supervisor wrote that “[a]dapting to Google culture is the primary task for the first year here . . .. Right or wrong, Google is simply different: Younger contributors, inexperienced first line managers, and the super fast pace are just a few examples of the environment.” (Emphasis added.)

The review concluded that Reid “consistently [met] expectations.”

In October 2003, Reid was removed from his position as the director of operations position, and relieved of his responsibilities as director of engineering. He was replaced by two employees, who were 15 and 20 years younger, respectively.  Google asked Reid to develop  an in-house graduate degree program and an undergraduate college recruitment program.

Reid maintains that Google’s then-CEO Eric Schmidt assured him the graduate program was important and would last at least five years. But Reid was given no budget or staff to support it.

Google says it fired Reid on February 13, 2004 because it was eliminating graduate degree program and Reid’s job, and because of poor performance. Reid says he was given no reason for his termination other than lack of “cultural fit.” He said he was told the graduate program would continue and his termination was not performance based.

According to CNN,  Google was picked as best employer because: “Employees rave about their mission, the culture, and the famous perks of the Plex: bocce courts, a bowling alley, eyebrow shaping (for a fee) in the New York office. Then there’s the food: some 25 cafés companywide, all gratis. Wrote one Googler: “Employees are never more than 150 feet away from a well-stocked pantry.”

Among other things, Reid’s complaint includes claims for age discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.), wrongful termination in violation of public policy; failure to prevent discrimination; and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

*  Editorial note: Before I confer the honor of America’s best employer on Google, I’d like to see how Reid’s lawsuit turns out. We may never see that, of course, because given the direction the litigation has taken, Google may be SERIOUSLY considering an out of court settlement (if it hasn’t already). In any case, I am not inclined to think that any employer who engages in pervasive age discrimination (or any other kind of illegal discrimination) is exemplary or worthy of honor. And I predict that the young people who are so thrilled with bocce ball and free coffee today will have a sad awakening in the not too distant future. They may start hearing “stray remarks” just around the time their children start thinking about college, when a paycheck would really come in handy.

%d bloggers like this: