215 F. Supp. 3d 844
N.D. Cal.2016Background
- Plaintiffs Cheryl Fillekes and Robert Heath sued Google under the ADEA alleging a company-wide pattern or practice of refusing to hire applicants age 40+ for technical roles (SWE, SRE, SysEng).
- Fillekes alleged multiple in-person interviews (2007–2014) with no hire and submitted declarations from seven other applicants plus statistical and administrative-complaint evidence; she sought conditional certification of a nationwide collective (post-August 13, 2010).
- Heath sought to partially join Fillekes’ motion but proposed a broader class definition that would cover all applicants 40+ rejected since Google’s alleged discriminatory practice began (potentially up to ~630,000 people); he submitted only his own declaration and internet-post materials.
- The court applied the two-step FLSA/ADEA collective-action framework and the lenient notice-stage standard for conditional certification (plaintiffs must make a modest factual showing that putative class members are similarly situated).
- The court overruled Google’s evidentiary objections (permissive treatment of hearsay and relaxed evidentiary rules at notice stage) and granted Fillekes’ motion for conditional certification of a limited collective; it denied Heath’s joinder/motion as his class was overbroad and unsupported.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the lenient notice-stage ADEA/FLSA standard applies | Fillekes: apply traditional two-step FLSA notice-stage test | Google: apply a more rigorous, modified Rule 23–type analysis | Court: apply lenient notice-stage two-step standard |
| Whether Fillekes made the modest factual showing to conditionally certify a collective | Fillekes: declarations, statistics, recruiter remarks show common plan/pattern | Google: evidence shows EEO policies, individualized inquiries, and contradictory employer records | Court: Fillekes met the lenient notice-stage standard; conditional certification granted |
| Whether Heath’s proposed collective is similarly situated and proper for conditional certification | Heath: join most of Fillekes’ motion but propose broader applicant-based class; asked court not to analyze similarly situated requirement now | Google: Heath’s class is overbroad and includes unqualified applicants; Heath not similarly situated | Court: Heath’s class is overbroad and unsupported; conditional certification denied |
| Scope and mechanics of notice (class list, timing, method) | Plaintiffs: proposed 15-day production and email notice via third party | Google: 15-day deadline burdensome; lacks applicant age data; meet-and-confer for notice details | Court: ordered parties to meet-and-confer and provide status; did not adopt Plaintiffs’ unilateral timing request |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989) (courts have managerial responsibility to oversee joinder and notice in collective actions)
- Leuthold v. Destination Am., Inc., 224 F.R.D. 462 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (describes two-step FLSA/ADEA collective-action approach and notice-stage standard)
- Adams v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 530 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (application of two-step conditional-certification framework)
- Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 133 S. Ct. 1523 (2013) (explaining that conditional certification’s primary consequence is dissemination of court-approved notice)
- Church v. Consolidated Freightways, Inc., 137 F.R.D. 294 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (explaining that Rule 23 requirements should not be imported into ADEA collective actions)