Robert Heath v. Google Inc.

Filing 1

COMPLAINT for Age Discrimination in Employment against Google Inc. ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-9464839.). Filed byRobert Heath. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Low, Daniel) (Filed on 4/22/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Daniel L. Low, SBN: 218387
Kotchen & Low LLP
1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
Washington, DC 20009
202-471-1995
202-280-1128 (fax)
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
ROBERT HEATH

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

SAN JOSE DIVISION
ROBERT HEATH,
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated,
v.
GOOGLE, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Defendant.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1

COMPLAINT

Case No.: 15-1824
COMPLAINT
FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE AGE
DISCRIMINATION IN
EMPLOYMENT ACT AND
THE CALIFORNIA FAIR
EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
ACT
CLASS ACTION
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

INTRODUCTION

1
2

1.

3

Plaintiff Robert Heath (“Mr. Heath”), on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated, alleges Defendant Google, Inc. (“Google”), through its hiring and

4
5

employment practices, violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as

6

amended (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621, et seq. and the California Fair Employment

7
8

and Housing Act (“FEHA”), Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900, et seq.

9

2.

10

Between 2007 and 2013, Google’s workforce grew from 9,500 to over

28,000 employees, yet as of 2013, its employees’ median age was 29 years old.

11

3.

12
13

In February 2011, Google failed to hire Mr. Heath, then age 60, for the

software engineer position he had applied and interviewed for. Mr. Heath had

14
15

highly-pertinent qualifications and experience, and a Google recruiter even deemed

16

him a “great candidate.” Moreover, Google was in the process of “embarking on its

17

largest recruiting / hiring campaign in its history,” Nevertheless, Google did not hire

18

Mr. Heath.

19
20

4.

21

Workforce statistics for 2013, as kept by the U.S. Department of Labor

(“DOL”), 1 indicate a median age of all U.S. workers of 42.4 years old. The 2013

22
23

DOL data further indicates a median age of 41.1 years old for U.S. workers in all

24

“Computer and mathematical occupations.” The DOL data further indicates: (a) a

25
26
27
28

These statistics are maintained by the Bureau of Labor Statistics at
http://www.bls.gov/cps/occupation_age.htm.
1

2

COMPLAINT

median age 42.8 years old for all U.S. workers who are “Computer programmers;”

1
2

(b) a median age of 40.6 years old for all U.S. workers in the occupations of

3

“Software developers, applications and systems software;” (c) a median age of 44.3

4
5

years old for U.S. workers in all “Architecture and engineering occupations;” (d) a

6

median age of 41.7 years old for U.S. “Computer hardware engineers;” and a median

7
8

age of 44.2 years old for U.S. “Engineers, all other.”

9

comprised mostly of workers under the age of 40, is grossly disproportionate to these

10

Google’s workforce,

U.S. workforce norms.

11

5.

12
13

Google has publicly acknowledged on its “Diversity” webpage, “We’re not

where we want to be when it comes to diversity. And it is hard to address these kinds

14
15

of challenges if you’re not prepared to discuss them openly, and with the facts.” 2

16

However, Google’s Diversity webpage does not include age-related workforce data,

17

despite disclosing data about other worker characteristics.

18

THE PARTIES

19
20

6.

21

Mr. Heath is a United States citizen, born on June 28, 1950, and has been

60 years old or older at all pertinent times referenced herein. Mr. Heath currently

22
23

resides in Boynton Beach, FL, formerly resided in Delray Beach, FL and has resided

24
25
26
27
28

See
https://web.archive.org/web/20140905062131/http://www.google.com/diversity/atgoogle.html (archived copy of Google’s webpage titled “Diversity” as it appeared
September 5, 2014).
2

3

COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

in Florida at all pertinent times. Mr. Heath has exhausted his administrative
remedies and complied with the statutory prerequisites of filing an ADEA complaint
by filing a timely discrimination complaint against Google with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), which was cross-filed with the
California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (“DFEH”). Mr. Heath has

8

received right to sue notices from EEOC and DFEH and is timely filing this

9

complaint and the ADEA and FEHA claims herein.

10
11
12
13
14

7.

Google is headquartered in Mountain View, California, and is an American

multinational corporation with internet-related products and services involving
online search, software, computing, and advertising technologies. Google had

15

revenues of approximately $66 billion in 2014. At all pertinent times, Google has

16

had 9,500 or more employees in the United States and currently employs over

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

53,000 employees. Google, in its own capacity, and as a joint employer with
subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities with which it is associated or contracts,
has exerted significant control over the hiring and employment decisions and actions
herein. Relief is sought against Google as well as its affiliates, employees, agents,
assistants, and successors.

24

JURISDICTION

25
26
27
28

8.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 29

U.S.C. § 626(b)-(c), and 29 U.S.C § 216(b).
4
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

9.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),

as the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
and is between citizens of different states.
10.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)

as this matter is a class action with an amount in controversy of greater than $5

8

million, exclusive of interest and costs, and involves at least one class member (Mr.

9

Heath) who is a citizen of a different state (Florida) than Defendant (California,

10
11
12
13
14

Delaware).
11.

This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Heath’s state law claim

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367, as that claim arises out of the same operative facts as

15

Mr. Heath’s other claim and, together, they form part of the same case or

16

controversy.

17
18
19
20
21
22

12.

This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because it engages

in continuous and systematic business contacts within the State of California and
maintains a substantial physical presence in this State, including the operation of its
corporate headquarters in Mountain View, California.

23
24
25
26
27
28

VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
13.

Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that Google

resides in this District, and a substantial part of the events (including discriminatory
hiring practices) giving rise to Mr. Heath’s claims occurred in this District.
5
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4

Assignment in this Division is proper pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c) because a
substantial part of the events giving rise to Mr. Heath’s claims occurred in this
Division.

5
6
7

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
14.

Mr. Heath graduated from North Carolina State University in 1978 with a

8

B.S. in Computer Science.

9

experience in information technology (“IT”) positions, including software engineer

10
11
12
13
14

Since 1978, Mr. Heath has had extensive work

positions with IBM, Compaq, and General Dynamics.
15.

In February 2011, Mr. Heath was seeking an IT job. He had his resume

posted on his personal website (www.bobheath.com). The resume listed his IT jobs

15

dating back to 1978 (i.e. over 32 years of post-college jobs), and thus made it

16

apparent he was over 50 years old.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

16.

Mr. Heath’s website resume stated his desired position involved

“opportunities related to software development [and] I would be interested in
assignments related to embedded systems or the world wide web and internet
assignments regarding C++, Java, PHP, and other software technologies.”
17.

Mr. Heath’s resume stated he had a master certification in Java, and he had

“[s]cored higher than 96% of all previous test takers” for that certification. His
resume further stated he had a master certification in C++, and he had “[s]cored

27
28

6
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

higher than 89% of all previous test takers” for that certification. It is rare for an IT
professional to have both certifications in Java and C++.
18.

On February 2, 2011, Mr. Heath was contacted by Sam Chun, who worked

as a recruiter in Engineering Staffing for Google in the San Francisco Bay Area (on
information and belief, in Google’s Mountain View, California headquarters). Mr.

8

Chun sent Mr. Heath an electronic message via Mr. Heath’s website. The message

9

stated, in pertinent part:

10

Not sure if you are aware of this but Google is embarking on its largest
recruiting / hiring campaign in its history. With that said I am currently
looking for the most talented and brightest software engineers and I
was hoping to get a few moments of your time to speak with you about
the opportunities we have available at Google. We're specifically
looking for engineers with coding expertise in C/C++ or Java for
projects related to Chrome OS, Android, Gmail, Search Quality,
Adsense, core Google Infrastructure, as well as many other others.
After reviewing your experience, I thought you would be a great
candidate to come work at Google and add value.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

19.

Later on February 2, 2011, Mr. Heath emailed Mr. Chun in response and

stated, “[s]ure, I would be interested in working for Google.” Mr. Heath further
stated, “[a]s you can see [from my resume], I have over 30 years of experience with
Java, C/C++, and various assembly languages.” Mr. Heath’s email then described
his related experience working on various applications, systems, and algorithms.
Mr. Chun sent an email in reply later that day, and stated “That is great to hear.” Mr.
Chun asked Mr. Heath to complete a questionnaire, which Mr. Heath promptly
completed and emailed to Mr. Chun, along with a copy of his resume.
7
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

20.

On February 3, 2011, Mr. Chun emailed Mr. Heath and informed him “a

technical phone interview” of Mr. Heath, to be conducted by a “Google Software
Engineer,” was scheduled for Tuesday, February 8, 2011 at 10:00 AM PST. The
email indicated the Software Engineer would call Mr. Heath, and “[t]he interview
requires you to be at a computer with internet connection throughout the call in case

8

coding is tested in real time via shared document.” The email gave Mr. Heath a link

9

so he could access shared documentation via the web-based word program Google

10
11
12
13
14

Docs.
21.

On February 8, 2011, the Google interviewer began the interview by calling

Mr. Heath ten minutes later than scheduled. This in turn caused the interview to be

15

shorter than the allotted time, and to end before the interview questions were all

16

answered, because, according to the interviewer, he had to terminate the interview

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

at 11:00 AM PST.
22.

The Google interviewer was barely fluent in English. The interviewer used

a speaker phone that did not function well. Mr. Heath asked him, politely and
repeatedly, if he would use his phone’s handset, and the interviewer refused, stating
that “we” would have to “suffer” through the interview using the speaker phone
because he did not want to have to hold the handset through the whole interview.
Communication was very difficult, and Mr. Heath and the interviewer had
difficulties understanding each other throughout the interview.
8
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

23.

The Google interviewer began by asking Mr. Heath how his employment

would help Google. Mr. Heath began to answer, but before he finished, the
interviewer interrupted him and told him he had answered the question. During the
remainder of the interview, the interviewer never asked about Mr. Heath’s
background, accomplishments, or qualifications.

8

24.

9

questions. The first two sections of questions dealt with calculating the size

10
11
12
13
14

The remainder of the interview consisted of three sections of technical

requirements of a program using arrays and the order of complexity of a sort
algorithm. Mr. Heath answered these questions completely and accurately.
25.

The third section of questions involved Mr. Heath writing a short program

15

to find the answer to a problem presented by the interviewer. Mr. Heath arrived at a

16

solution, and asked the interviewer if he would access Mr. Heath’s solution — i.e.,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

the coding and program Mr. Heath had written — via the shared Google Docs
documentation.
26.

The Google interviewer refused to use Google Docs or access the shared

documentation with Mr. Heath’s program.

Mr. Heath offered to email the

interviewer the program, but the interviewer refused that as well. The interviewer
required Mr. Heath to read the program coding over the phone, which Mr. Heath
did. However, the interviewer — whose lack of English fluency and use of the

27
28

9
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

speaker phone further complicated this exchange — seemed not to understand what
Mr. Heath was reading, despite Mr. Heath’s best efforts.
27.

On February 10, 2011, Mr. Chun emailed Mr. Heath and stated,

“[u]nfortunately, based on the feedback we received from the engineer who
conducted your technical phone interview, we’re not going to be continuing on to

8

the next step in the process.” No detail was stated as to why Google did not hire Mr.

9

Heath for the position.

10
11
12
13
14

28.

Following the interview, Mr. Heath contacted Google Human Resources

(“HR”) and explained what had occurred during the interview to an HR
representative. The HR representative stated that the interviewer had acted

15

inappropriately. The HR representative stated that the interviewer should have used

16

the Google Docs software to receive the program that he had asked Mr. Heath to

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

write.
29.

On information and belief, by conducting the interview as described above,

Google intentionally did not allow Mr. Heath to communicate or demonstrate his
full technical abilities, and did not have a sincere interest in hiring Mr. Heath.
30.

On information and belief, Google’s interview policies and practices with

respect to Mr. Heath and similarly situated workers age 40 or older are
disadvantageous as compared to those used with workers under the age of 40, who
Google treats preferentially and hires in significantly greater numbers.
10
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

31.

On information and belief, Google failed to hire Mr. Heath and other

members of the putative class in favor of younger applicants under the age of 40.
32.

Google, with respect to its hiring decisions and other terms and conditions

of employment described herein, discriminates against job applicants and workers
who are age 40 or older.

8

33.

9

from the pertinent period of August 13, 2010 (300 days preceding the date of Mr.

10
11
12
13
14

Google’s hiring and employment policies and practices described herein,

Heath’s EEOC complaint) through present, have denied equal opportunities
involving hiring, employment and compensation to job applicants and workers who
are age 40 or older.

15

34.

16

over and/or responsibility for hiring policies, practices, and decisions (including

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

On information and belief, Google managers and executives with control

those for Mr. Heath and the putative Class) have made negative and discriminatory
statements with regard to older workers age 40 and older.
35.

In a prior lawsuit, Reid v. Google, Inc., the California Supreme Court and

Court of Appeal (Sixth District) held that former Google executive Brian Reid
(formerly Google’s Director of Operations and Director of Engineering) had
presented sufficient evidence in alleging age discrimination – including statistical
evidence supporting preferential performance reviews and bonuses for workers
under 40 and negative statements by high-level executives concerning older workers
11
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

– to warrant a trial and denial of summary judgment. See 235 P.3d 988 (Cal. 2010);
66 Cal. Rptr.3d 744 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). As those Courts’ found, in addition to
presenting statistical evidence, Mr. Reid presented evidence that executives and
colleagues at Google had made negative statements reflecting animus towards
workers over the age of 40, including: (a) that Urs Hölzle (Google’s eighth

8

employee, former VP of Engineering, and now a senior vice president of technical

9

infrastructure at Google) had supervised Reid and had made age-related comments

10
11
12
13
14

to Reid “every few weeks,” including statements to Reid that his opinions and ideas
were “obsolete,” and “too old to matter;” (b) that other colleagues at Google had
referred to Reid as an “old man,” an “old guy,” and an “old fuddy-duddy,” had told

15

him his knowledge was ancient, and had joked that his CD jewel case office placard

16

should be an “LP” instead of a “CD;” (c) that Reid alleged that in a performance

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

evaluation he received, his supervisor stated “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;” (d) that Google’s Vice President
of Engineering Wayne Rosing (to whom Reid and Hölzle reported) and executive
Larry Page (one of Google’s co-founders) were involved with Reid’s job
termination and that Reid was told he was not a “cultural fit” as a reason for his job
termination; and (e) that a former Google recruiter testified that the term “cultural
fit” was used in company circles only to describe older workers.
12
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

36.

Google has engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of discriminating

against individuals (including Mr. Heath) who are age 40 and older in hiring,
compensation, and other employment decisions with the resultant effect that persons
age 40 or older are systemically excluded from positions for which they are wellqualified. The end result of Google’s pattern and practice of age discrimination is a

8

workforce with a median age of 29. On information and belief, Google’s

9

discriminatory conduct was intentional.

10
11
12
13
14

37.

Google’s policies and practices, even if facially neutral, have had a

substantial adverse impact on the hiring and employment opportunities of applicants
and workers (including Mr. Heath) who are age 40 or older and qualified for

15

available positions.

16

38.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Thus, this Class Action is brought by Mr. Heath on behalf of himself

individually and all similarly-situated workers age 40 and older against whom
Google has discriminated on the basis of age by implementing its policies and
practices of systemically recruiting and hiring workers under the age of 40 in lieu of
older qualified workers such that Google’s median workforce age is 29.

23
24
25
26
27
28

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
39.

Mr. Heath brings this Class Action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(a), (b)(2), (b)(3), and (c)(4), seeking injunctive and monetary relief
for the systemic pattern and practice of discriminatory employment practices based
13
COMPLAINT

1
2
3

upon individuals’ age. This action is brought on behalf of the following class of
individuals:
All individuals who are age 40 or older who sought a work position
with Google and were not hired from August 13, 2010 through the
present.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

40.

Members of the class are so numerous and geographically dispersed across

the United States that joinder is impracticable. While the exact number of class
members is unknown to Mr. Heath, it is believed to be in the thousands.
Furthermore, the class is readily identifiable from information and records in

12

possession of Google.

13

41.

14
15
16
17
18

There are numerous questions of law and fact common to members of the

class. Among the common questions of law or fact are: (a) whether Google, in
making hiring and employment decisions, has intentionally discriminated against
individuals who are age 40 and older; (b) whether Google has adopted policies and

19

practices (including but not limited to recruitment, interview and hiring policies and

20

practices) that involve the preferential and discriminatory hiring of workers under

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

the age of 40 to the detriment of workers aged 40 and older; (c) whether Google’s
policies and/or practices of hiring workers of a median age of 29 have involved a
pattern and practice of discrimination against workers aged 40 and older; (d)
whether Google’s policies and/or practices of hiring workers of a median age of 29
have had a disparate impact on workers aged 40 and older; (e) whether the disparate

28

14
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

impact of Google’s policies and practices is justified by business or commercial
necessity or a “reasonable factor other than age;” (g) whether there were alternative,
objective means for recruiting, hiring, and employing workers that would have had
a less disparate impact on workers aged 40 and older; (h) whether Google has
violated the ADEA; (i) whether Google has violated the FEHA; and (j) whether

8

damages, equitable and injunctive relief are warranted for the Class.

9

42.

10
11
12
13
14

Mr. Heath’s claims are typical of the Class. All members of the Class were

damaged by the same discriminatory policies and procedures employed by Google.
43.

Mr. Heath will fairly and adequately protect the interest of other class

members because he has no interest that is antagonistic to or which conflicts with

15

those of any other class member, and Mr. Heath is committed to the vigorous

16

prosecution of this action and has retained competent counsel experienced in class

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

litigation to represent him and the other class members.
44.

Mr. Heath and the Class he seeks to represent have suffered substantial

losses in earnings and other employment benefits and compensation as a result of
Google’s actions.
45.

Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(b)(2) because Google has acted and/or refused to act on grounds
generally applicable to the Class, making declaratory and injunctive relief
appropriate with respect to Mr. Heath and the Class as a whole. The Class members
15
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to end Google’s systematic, common,
uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and/or practices.
46.

Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(b)(3) for determination of the damages claims of individual class
members because the issue of liability is common to the class and the common

8

nucleus of operative facts forms the central issue, which predominates over

9

individual issues of proof. The primary question common to the Class is whether

10
11
12
13
14

Google has discriminated on the basis of age in its hiring and employment practices.
This question is central to the case and predominates over individual issues among
the members of the proposed class. Google has engaged in a common course of

15

discriminatory conduct in a manner that has harmed all of the class members. Class

16

certification under Rule 23(b)(3) would be superior to other methods for fair and

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

efficient resolution of the issues because certification will avoid the need for
repeated litigation by each individual class member. The instant case will be
eminently manageable as a class action. Mr. Heath knows of no difficulty to be
encountered in the maintenance of this action that would preclude its maintenance
as a class action.
47.

Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23(c)(4) to litigate Mr. Heath’s claims for prospective classwide
compliance and affirmative injunctive relief necessary to eliminate Google’s
16
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5

discrimination. Certification under this rule is also appropriate to decide whether
Google has adopted a systemic pattern and practice of age discrimination in hiring
and employment decisions. Certification under this rule is also appropriate to
determine classwide equitable relief and damages, including punitive damages.

6

COUNT I
(Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C § 621, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

48.

Mr. Heath re-alleges and incorporates the above paragraphs by reference as

if fully set forth herein.
49.

The ADEA claims herein are brought by Mr. Heath on behalf of himself and

the Class.

15

50.

16

practice of discriminating against individuals who are age 40 and older by: (a)

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Throughout the class liability period, Google has engaged in a pattern and

knowingly and intentionally, in the company’s hiring and employment practices,
treating adversely individuals who are age 40 and older, and treating preferentially
individuals who are under 40 years old, and (b) filling a disproportionately large
percentage of its workforce with individuals under 40 years old (such that the
median workforce age is 29 years old) even when there are many individuals age 40
or older who are available and well-qualified for the positions at issue.
51.

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s intentional discrimination, Mr.

Heath and the members of the Class have been denied employment, denied the fair
17
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

opportunity to obtain employment, and denied fair opportunities with regard to
positions, compensation, and/or employment with Defendants.
52.

Throughout the class liability period, Google has used policies and practices

related to hiring and employment described herein, that have had a disparate impact
on the basis of age (discriminating against workers who are age 40 and older) that

8

are not job-related for the positions at issue, not consistent with business necessity

9

and are not necessitated by any reasonable factor other than age.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

53.

Google’s actions constitute unlawful discrimination in violation of the

ADEA.
COUNT II
(California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Cal. Gov’t Code § 12900, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)
54.

Mr. Heath re-alleges and incorporates the above paragraphs by reference as

if fully set forth herein.
55.

The FEHA prohibits an employer from discriminating on the basis of age.

Cal. Gov. Code § 12940(a). The FEHA claims herein are brought by Mr. Heath on
behalf of himself and the Class.
56.

Throughout the class liability period, Google has engaged in a pattern and

practice of discriminating against individuals who are age 40 and older by: (a)
knowingly and intentionally, in the company’s hiring and employment practices,
treating adversely individuals who are 40 years old and older, and treating
18
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

preferentially individuals who are under 40 years old, and (b) filling a
disproportionately large percentage of its workforce with individuals under 40 years
old (such that the median workforce age is 29 years old) even when there are many
individuals age 40 or older who are available and well-qualified for the positions at
issue.

8

57.

9

Heath and the members of the Class have been denied employment, denied the fair

10
11
12
13
14

As a direct and proximate result of Google’s intentional discrimination, Mr.

opportunity to obtain employment, and denied fair opportunities with regard to
positions, compensation, and/or employment with Defendants.
58.

Throughout the class liability period, Google has used policies and practices

15

related to hiring and employment described herein, that have had a disparate impact

16

on the basis of age (discriminating against workers who are age 40 and older) that

17
18
19
20
21
22

are not job-related for the positions at issue, not consistent with business necessity
and are not necessitated by any reasonable factor other than age.
59.

Google’s actions constitute unlawful discrimination in violation of the

FEHA.

23
24
25
26
27
28

JURY TRIAL DEMAND
60.

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 38(b), Mr. Heath, on behalf of himself and others

similarly situated, demands a trial by jury of all claims asserted in this Complaint so
triable.
19
COMPLAINT

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

WHEREFORE, Mr. Heath requests the Court enter judgment against Google:
a.

Certifying the case, including the FEHA claims, as a class action

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
b.

Designating Mr. Heath as representative of the Class;

c.

Designating Mr. Heath’s counsel as counsel for the Class;

d.

Rendering a declaratory judgment that the practices complained of

herein are unlawful and violate the ADEA and FEHA;
e.

Issuing a permanent injunction against Google and its officers, agents,

successors, employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert
with them, from engaging in unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set
forth herein;
f.

Ordering Google to adopt a valid, non-discriminatory method for hiring;

g.

Ordering Google to post notices concerning its duty to refrain from

discriminating against employees on the basis of age;
h.

Ordering Google to pay Mr. Heath and the Class compensatory damages

for harms suffered as a result of Google’s violations of the ADEA and FEHA;
i.

Awarding Mr. Heath and the Class prejudgment interest at the prevailing

26

rate on the compensatory damages as a result of Defendants’ discriminating against

27

them;

28

20
COMPLAINT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

j.

Awarding Mr. Health and the Class front- and back-pay, and such other

equitable relief as the court deems just and appropriate;
k.

Awarding Mr. Heath and the Class liquidated, exemplary and punitive

damages;
l.

Awarding reasonable attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, expenses, and

costs of this action and of prior administrative actions;
m.

Declaring this action to be an ADEA collective action properly

maintained under 29 U.S.C. §216(b); and
n.

Awarding Mr. Heath and the Class such other relief as this Court deems

just and appropriate.
Dated: April 22, 2015

16

By: /s/ Daniel Low

17

Daniel L. Low, SBN: 218387
Daniel A. Kotchen (motion pro hac vice
to be filed), SBN: WI 1029853
Michael von Klemperer (motion pro hac
vice to be filed), SBN: DC 1015469
Kotchen & Low LLP
1745 Kalorama Road NW, Suite 101
Washington, DC 20009
202-471-1995
202-280-1128 (fax)
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

21
COMPLAINT

Michael F. Brown (motion pro hac vice
to be filed), SBN: WI 1041753
DVG Law Partner LLC
P.O. Box 645
Neenah, WI 54957
920-238-6781
920-273-6177 (fax)
[e-mail]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Vonda K. Vandaveer (motion pro hac
vice to be filed) SBN: DC 483807; CA
Bar. No. 206807 (inactive)
V.K. Vandaveer, P.L.L.C.
P.O. Box 27317
Washington, DC 20038-7317
202-340-1215
202-521-0599 (fax)
[e-mail]

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Attorneys for Plaintiff Heath

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

22
COMPLAINT