345 F. Supp. 3d 1152
N.D. Cal.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are ~265 applicants age 40+ who received on‑site interviews for Google SWE/SRE/SysEng positions (Aug 28, 2014–Oct 5, 2016) and were denied employment; they opted into a conditionally certified ADEA collective.
- Plaintiffs allege Google’s multi‑stage hiring process (resume/phone screen, technical phone screen, on‑site interviews, Hiring Committees) operated as a pattern-or-practice to disadvantage older applicants via five interrelated aspects (collecting age‑revealing dates, abstract theoretical interview focus, discounting real‑world experience, higher standards for senior applicants, and reliance on "Googleyness").
- Plaintiffs offered anecdotal deposition evidence from Opt‑Ins and statistical analysis (Dr. Neumark) showing a statistically significant lower offer rate for applicants 40+ who reached on‑site interviews; Google offered competing expert analysis and emphasized its anti‑discrimination policies and interviewer training.
- Google moved to decertify the collective at the close of discovery, arguing plaintiffs are not "similarly situated" and highlighting individualized differences in interviews, job roles, interviewers, and potential defenses.
- The court applied the two‑step Teamsters pattern‑or‑practice framework (Phase One liability on company‑wide practice; Phase Two individual relief) alongside the Leuthold/three‑factor decertification inquiry and denied Google’s motion to decertify.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether opt‑ins are "similarly situated" for §216(b) collective action | Opt‑Ins were subject to the same standardized, multi‑component hiring practice and common statistical and testimonial evidence supports common liability | Evidence shows individualized interview experiences, different job families/levels, and varied reviewer evaluations—so plaintiffs lack the necessary commonality | Denied decertification: plaintiffs met burden of substantial evidence of common policy under Leuthold factors when considered with Teamsters framework |
| Whether Teamsters pattern‑or‑practice framework applies to ADEA collective claims | Teamsters applies; plaintiffs can pursue Phase One liability showing a company‑wide policy using statistics and anecdotes | Teamsters should not apply (or is irrelevant) because Gross requires plaintiff to prove "but‑for" causation and Teamsters shifts burdens | Court allowed Teamsters framework for phase‑structured trial, rejecting Google’s Gross argument as inapplicable to pattern‑or‑practice context |
| Sufficiency and role of statistical evidence | Dr. Neumark’s statistical disparity in offer rates between <40 and 40+ on‑site interviewees supports an inference of discriminatory pattern or practice | Statistics are untethered to plaintiffs’ specific claims and are challenged by Google’s expert; plaintiffs cannot rely solely on broad stats | Court credited that the statistics, together with anecdotal evidence, create a prima facie showing sufficient for collective treatment at Phase One |
| Manageability and individualized defenses (prejudice/due process) | Collective process is fair and efficient; individualized issues (defenses, damages) are Phase Two matters and can be handled later or via subclasses | Individualized defenses (legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, mitigation, backpay calculations, varied interviews) make trial unmanageable and raise due process concerns | Court held manageability and fairness favor collective Phase One adjudication; individualized defenses are primarily Phase Two issues and do not warrant decertification now |
Key Cases Cited
- Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (Sup. Ct.) (sets out two‑phase pattern‑or‑practice framework and burden‑shifting for class‑wide liability and individual relief)
- Thiessen v. Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 267 F.3d 1095 (10th Cir.) (applies Teamsters to ADEA collective suits and instructs courts to account for pattern‑or‑practice structure in decertification analysis)
- Gross v. FBL Fin. Servs., Inc., 557 U.S. 167 (Sup. Ct.) (addresses ADEA burden of persuasion on causation in individualized disparate‑treatment suits)
- Hipp v. Liberty Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 252 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir.) (discusses pattern‑or‑practice and collective action standards under the ADEA)
- Adams v. Ameritech Servs., Inc., 231 F.3d 414 (7th Cir.) (statistical disparities of two standard deviations can support inference of discrimination)
- Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (Sup. Ct.) (recognizes that gross statistical disparities can constitute prima facie proof of pattern or practice of discrimination)
- AFSCME v. State of Wash., 770 F.2d 1401 (9th Cir.) (acknowledges that statistical evidence can give rise to an inference of discriminatory intent)