SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for AnonymousLuser
Google pays $11 million to settle 227 age discrimination claims
Google will pay $11 million to settle the claims of 227 people who say they were unfairly denied jobs because of their age, according to Friday court filings. The settlement must still be approved by the judge in the case.
The original lead plaintiff in the case, first filed in 2015, was a 60-something man named Robert Heath who says he was deemed a "great candidate" by a Google recruiter. The lawsuit said that in 2013, the median age of Google employees was 29, whereas the typical computer programmer in the US is over 40, according to several different measures.
During the interview process, Heath received a technical phone interview with a Google engineer. Heath alleged that the engineer had a heavy accent, a problem made worse by the engineer's insistence on using a speakerphone. When Heath was working through a technical problem, he asked if he could share his code using a Google Doc. The interviewer refused, Heath alleged. Instead, Heath had to read code snippets over the phone—an inherently error-prone process. Heath argued that the interview process "reflected a complete disregard for older workers who are undeniably more susceptible to hearing loss."
[... Cheryl Fillekes] says she interviewed for engineering jobs at Google four times but was never offered a position. During one interview process, Fillekes says, a recruiter requested that she submit an updated résumé that showed her graduation dates for college and graduate degrees. When Fillekes asked why this was required, she says the recruiter responded that it was "so the interviewers can see how old you are."
Of the $11 million payout in the settlement, $2.75 million will go to lawyers representing the class, Bloomberg reports. Fillekes will get an extra $10,000 as the lead plaintiff. The remaining cash works out to around $35,000 per plaintiff.
(Score: 5, Informative) by AthanasiusKircher on Tuesday July 23 2019, @04:18PM (5 children)
I don't agree with it, but I understand why many tech companies do it. Interviewers assume older more experienced workers want higher salaries. And older workers are more likely to have things like family responsibilities and other commitments. They are less willing to work 16-hour days for little money. They are "too old for that kind of crap." It's much easier to find a 20-something to exploit.
But I've seen age discrimination even in places where it makes absolutely no sense. Years ago when I was just out of undergrad, I spent a few years teaching high school. The easiest path to certification for public schools was an "alternative certification program," which -- at that time -- usually required an intensive summer program, a bunch of weekends during the year, and effectively an "internship year" teaching with a lot of observations rather than student teaching (but you'd be paid full salary), after which you'd take certification exams.
I started out in the math group, as I had already been hired for a math job the previous year even with no certification. (States in the U.S. South are often desperate for teachers, and there are always legal ways to get exceptions.) There were something like 50 people enrolled in the math program, and I'd say about 75% of them were older men. The largest chunk of those were guys who made decent money in various fields (from engineering to finance) and decided to retire from that world early, but they wanted to "give back" and thus were interested in teaching. Most of this group were somewhere in their 50s.
At my young age at that time (mid-20s), I had rarely met such a group of interesting, intelligent, and experienced individuals. They were amazing guys. Many of them were sincerely devoted to the idea of teaching, and they wanted to bring their life experience with them as well as contributing to the community. I think the vast majority of them would make amazing teachers, having so much experience with practical use of math, etc.
But many of them had terrible times finding positions. Keep in mind that I was teaching in an area that had hundreds of vacant positions on the first day of school the previous year, with substitute teachers in the classrooms because they couldn't find enough qualified teachers. (That's how I ended up looking into teaching; I found that state of things deplorable.) Many of these older guys couldn't even get interviews.
Keep in mind that in this case salary was not an issue: public school teachers had salary scales that were set based on years of experience, so these guys knew they weren't going to be earning much. Also keep in mind that teacher retention in the U.S. is a huge problem -- younger folks who take teaching jobs have a median length about 5 years before they leave the field of teaching completely. So, it's not like hiring a 55-year-old guy is concerning because he might not have a "long career" at a school -- chances are he could stick around a lot longer than the average young teacher will.
There was no rational reason to discriminate against these guys, except they were older. Meanwhile, at the beginning of the next year, I was forced to switch to the science certification program, when my school decided they couldn't find a physics teacher. That program was much smaller and mostly consisted of 20-somethings with C-average science degrees from Nowhere College who were literally too stupid to find a job elsewhere. Seriously. Yet they had no trouble finding jobs, despite that science teaching openings were about as common as math openings (that is, very common -- schools were desperate for such teachers).
I believe most of the math guys eventually found positions, but it was clear they had a much harder time at it than the idiots I worked with in the science program. Many of the math guys were hired at the last possible moment (some even a few days after the first day of school -- apparently, some administrators preferred opening the school year with a sub in the classroom rather than a smart, educated, former engineer who had made a deliberate career choice to teach).
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Tuesday July 23 2019, @06:20PM (1 child)
Based on some limited personal experience, lacking credentials like a Masters in Education can be a barrier as well. I suppose an administrator could use it as an excuse if they didn't feel comfortable hiring an older guy from private industry.
(Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday July 24 2019, @03:20AM
That's true in some places, but not likely here. The year before I started the program, I walked into a public school with no masters at all, not even a degree in math (though I had one in a math-heavy field), and I had a job within two hours.
I was living in Texas at the time. On the first day of school, I heard on the radio that the state had 36,000 teaching vacancies still open that year. No, that's not a typo. It sticks in my head because it was so crazy. And if you need proof, I remember seeing an article from that time that said there were 40,000 statewide... It was crazy. The state started the kind of alternative certification program I was in to fast-track teachers because of the employment crisis.
In the city region I lived in, 1800 classrooms opened on the first day of school with no permanent teacher. That's the situation these guys were in... A market where an administrator would apparently prefer to wait until the fall term started and have a vacancy (while hoping a younger and more credentialed teacher would come along) rather than hire one of these older guys who was interested in teaching.
If you live in the Northeast or Northwest where teachers are better paid and tend to stay longer, they also often ask for more credentials. In many places in the U.S. South they are happy to have a warm body in the classroom. I had a significant math background, but the teacher my first school hired to fill another math vacancy had a psych degree and to my eye whenever I walked by her room never appeared to teach her students anything, let alone math.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday July 23 2019, @10:38PM (1 child)
Maybe the admins just don't like 55-year old engineers. Potential issues are race (too white), gender (too male), political outlook (not progressive enough), economic (too well off), and metaphysical (too sciency).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24 2019, @12:29AM
Maybe they werne't white enough, weren't conservative enough, and had once been part of the free love or hippie movements.
When I went to school the majority of teachers and all the administrators were rabidly conservative and anti-communist to the point of daily propaganda for most of k-3, if not k-6.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 23 2019, @11:01PM
That's the worst kind though. They aren't only discrimination against the old, but exploiting the young. This kind of shit has to end.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 23 2019, @05:18PM (1 child)
If you didn't want do deal with people who still think they are undergrads and work in a playpen
you didn't want to work at Google in that timeframe.
Now, it's a cesspool of PHBs and cost centers which no sane experienced engineer would work
at either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 23 2019, @05:43PM
I don't doubt there are some PHB playpens at Google now, but AFAIK the technical people are still enjoying their playpen environment continuing from the autists' clubs they were in during undergrad.
In fact the last I heard about Google management was that some of them were fraternizing with their subordinates to scream "fuck you"s over their internal messaging system at an engineer who committed crimethink.
So what makes you think it is a PHB cesspool now?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 23 2019, @05:46PM
$35k reward after years of litigation?!?
At ~$1000 per window, it's probably faster - and more satisfying - to just throw rocks.
They're all Israelis, anyway. They'll understand.
(Score: 2) by Barenflimski on Tuesday July 23 2019, @06:09PM (2 children)
I have dozens of rejection emails from youngster owned companies telling me that "It wasn't a cultural fit" to hire me. @35k per, that works out to some real money! Who do I contact about this?
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Tuesday July 23 2019, @06:17PM
The original plaintiff was able to convince the court that he was discriminated against on the basis of an age related impairment. "Not a cultural fit" doesn't sound legally incriminating enough, though I'm sure it was BS.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday July 23 2019, @07:19PM
Blood from a turnip? Those "youngster owned companies" mostly are teetering on bankruptcy already.
Google definitely has failed to return my calls, letters, e-mails, etc. and I'm pretty sure it's because I was born before Apollo 11.
Now, prove that to a court of law.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 23 2019, @08:28PM (4 children)
discrimination is a fundamental right of any free human being. letting the government or any other group tell you who you must hire or associate with is giving away your sovereignty. eventually they will be forcing you to hire, do work for, associate or even live with people you are completely opposed to or in danger from. publicly funded institutions discriminating is something completely different as all parties ostensibly participated in the funding of the thing. private enterprises are the purview of the owner or group of owners and they alone should decide what their policies are.
(Score: 2) by NateMich on Tuesday July 23 2019, @10:02PM (1 child)
While you may think that sounds great on the surface, surely you can see what a society with nobody over age 40 employed at all would look like. Because that's what you're talking about.
The thing is, everyone gets older. You really can't save enough for potentially 50 years of retirement by the time you're 40, regardless of how much you're putting away unless you're extremely well paid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24 2019, @12:00AM
Off to Carousel: "Renew! Renew!"
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Tuesday July 23 2019, @10:45PM (1 child)
But big companies are not human beings. They have many obligations of public institutions.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Wednesday July 24 2019, @12:10AM
Agreed, but as an older tech guy who has been on both sides of the interview table, you really need to let the hiring manager hire someone they are comfortable with and believe in. Of course, this gives them the opportunity to apply their biases, but I don’t see any blanket solution that’s fair to everyone.
All I ask is that I not get screened out by the company recruiter on the basis of age so I can get at least get a chance to make my case directly to the hiring manager in a phone interview.
(Score: 3, Informative) by darkfeline on Tuesday July 23 2019, @10:41PM (2 children)
Sounds like people just trying to get money or people woefully ignorant of the hiring process (which also explains why they weren't hired).
>a 60-something man named Robert Heath who says he was deemed a "great candidate" by a Google recruiter
Recruiters are not technically skilled. A "great candidate" means their resume matches a few keyword searches. It means jack shit.
>Heath argued that the interview process "reflected a complete disregard for older workers who are undeniably more susceptible to hearing loss."
He should have requested hearing assistance when scheduling the interview then. What he's asking for is legally risky; if Google assumed that all older applicants had hearing loss, that makes it way easier to build a case that Google was discriminating based on age. Had he explicitly told Google that he required hearing assistance, then that gets marked internally as a disability and Google's HR/legal will take great care not to leave room for a discrimination lawsuit.
1. Companies can't assume anything about applicant, because then you enter the gray area of "I claim that Google assumed I was X and discriminated against me".
2. Companies are legally required to not discriminate and also provide assistance/building access based on disability (that doesn't materially affect ability to perform job), but you need to explicitly inform the company.
2a. Of course this disincentivizes companies from wanting to hire people with disabilities because they are more work/cost more/greater legal liability. That's life, what are you going to do? Force companies to have a disability quota?
>the recruiter responded that it was "so the interviewers can see how old you are."
There's a lot of context you need to know.
1. A large company would under no circumstance promote making such a statement, since it's almost a free "win a class action lawsuit" card (which indeed happened here).
2. Recruiters are generally not "regular employees". They're more like independent headhunters or contracted from a separate organization. (This is also partly why recruiters are not technical.)
3. Therefore, there's usually a training policy written by the company that is then passed to the recruiters/contractors. This document has a protect your ass section specifically about making statements that make the company legally vulnerable.
4. Recruiters are also, if I may be blunt, stupider (they're much cheaper than a software engineer), and passing a policy document across organizations and down company hierarchies doesn't help clarity. Often the message that recruiters receive doesn't accurately reflect the original policy. Getting the right policy down usually requires repeating it and enforcing it over and over again over a long period of time, during which violations happen; if you've ever worked with a troublesome vendor, you know the feeling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers [wikipedia.org]
4. The recruiter in question violated policy and probably will get/has already gotten fired by the contracted company.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24 2019, @12:42AM (1 child)
All google engineers are expected to do interviews with possible employees. It is part of their job. Usually at least 1-2 per week.
Source: when I interviewed the interviewers....
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday July 24 2019, @02:06AM
Interviewers are not recruiters. Part of the reason for interviewers is because the recruiters aren't qualified to evaluate applicants, except in the barest superficial sense.
(and the "at least 1-2 per week" is incorrect. I'm not providing a source, take it as you will)
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24 2019, @04:09AM (3 children)
I have dealt with too many outdated IT people in my current job. Idiotic things like "Let's use NetBIOS server code names with the OS version first" instead of friendly FQDN (W16NYthng01 instead of thing01.NY.site), or a Master's in Information Bullshit asking me "What's Python?". Or just that we're still running Windows Server 2008 R2 in production serving web-facing applications. Or that "Windows is as secure as Linux."
You know what the common factor is with both of those idiots? Gray hair.
(Score: 2) by jb on Wednesday July 24 2019, @07:57AM (1 child)
Must be a Windows thing.
In the Unix world, when one's hair begins to go grey, the only noticeable effect in the workplace is a strong expectation (perhaps even an obligation) to grow a beard...
(Score: 2) by Webweasel on Wednesday July 24 2019, @09:25AM
Looks behind me.
Long grey hair, beard, polo shirt, shorts, sandals with socks. Massive beer gut.
Ahh, yes, the wild unix admin.
I decided to cut my hair, beard and go into web infrastructure instead.
Priyom.org Number stations, Russian Military radio. "You are a bad, bad man. Do you have any other virtues?"-Runaway1956
(Score: 3, Insightful) by qzm on Wednesday July 24 2019, @10:14AM
Funny that.
I have dealt with a continuous stream of early 20s who interview like superheros, until you chuck them in to a real work situation, when they suddenly want to start a 6 month 'documentation and investigation' project, and after a little digging finding out that they pretty much lied and faked most of their 'skills', and their references must either be doing them favours, or desperate for them to find somewhere ELSE to work.
Its even more interesting when they need to work in a situation where 'google' isnt on hand to answer any questions they have..
A pretty good test I use these days is to have over a few scenerios (code, network layouts, whatever fits the roll) that are over complex but obvious stupid in some way, and say 'this is an example of our internal systems, can you handle this?'
The idiots usually gush about how professional and impressive these are and how they cannot wait to work on them.
The correct answer is 'this makes no sense, and seems really broken - why would you use this? If this is really your good stuff, then I think I'll look elsewhere'