> Why is Google still making denials and statements after settling the action?
This is standard in any settlement, which is typically a release of liability. Part of the boilerplate in these contracts is that both parties are compromising not because of guilt but because of the uncertainty of litigation.
Even were Google in the right, a long protracted legal battle against claimed discrimination will constantly remind people that there’s alleged age discrimination. Nipping the negative PR in the bud is probably clearly worth it.
As an aside, ageism is pretty apparent in most companies where I’ve worked. There’s a huge expectation of “up or out”. I was on a hiring committee where I’m ashamed I didn’t stand up for a candidate who the committee decided had too much “experience” to be slotted at level X and therefore not offered any job. At least that shame gave me the courage to speak up the next time I ended up in that position.
Google has a history of age discrimination and losing in court, going back to the founders of the company.
See Reid v Google where Brian Reid, a key developer of the tech we use, was told his ideas "were too old to matter" and that he was an "old fuddy duddy."
Another fun fact from that lawsuit: Steve Jobs threatened Palm with a patent war if they didn't join the cartel. Oh, it was a fun time to work in the valley...
"I would prefer that Omid do it verbally since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later? Not sure about this.. thanks Eric"
Companies settle all the time. It's common for insurance claims, for example. At a not-for-profit organization I'm involved with, a homeless person punched someone on the sidewalk outside their property. The victim then turned around and sued the organization, who had nothing to do with the incident except that it technically happened on their property (which is in an urban area). The president of the organization wanted to fight the case in court (on principle, because he felt that he shouldn't be liable, though he did express sympathy to the victim). The not-for-profit's insurance company wanted none of it and they settled for something like 50K. I'm sure that the insurance company has better lawyers than your average joe, but I'm also sure that they run the numbers and look at the risks (financial and reputational) and then make a decision whether to fight a case in court or not.
a) to be fair, this homeless person punched them in the face
b) the organization does medical research, not work with the homeless. It just happens to be that the victim was walking on their property when a homeless person who was also passing by punched them in the face. The victim was indeed hurt and needed to go to the hospital. But the president of the organization felt that someone getting punched on the sidewalk (which is in an urban area... we're not talking a large property) was unfortunate, but not something his org should be responsible for. However, the insurance company didn't want to deal with the lawsuit, so they settled.
Sure, but if you get a judge that decides that the penalty should be salary from the time you were interviewed to the settlement date for each of the plaintiffs, the cost could be many times higher. Not to mention this simply won't look good in the public spotlight, regardless of how right Google may be.
It's also almost impossible to prove on both sides. Even if Google has insane numbers showing how many young vs old people they hire, it's totally possible that the younger ones are simply more experienced with the technologies/paradigms Google is looking for. A judge might not see it the same way though.
Isn't it usually the defendants that attempt to drown the plaintiffs in discovery-related paperwork? This is an employment dispute, surely Google's own lawyers have a much better handle on the legalese of their own HR practices (and of labour laws in the state) than the plaintiffs?
(See, e.g., the Kevin Spacey lawsuit for a recent example in the news)
Again, the question is not who would win. It's whether it is worth winning.
Let me use a strong amount of hyperbole to try to make this part of the point.
Imagine a 3 year old challenges you to a fight.
They are completely and totally adamant about it.
You certainly could win.
Is it worth winning?
Or would it be better to try to give them ice cream and get them to stop bugging you.
Now imagine this fight will take 5-7 years :)
Despite what random comments on hacker news say, these are basically settled on a regular basis as cost of doing business.
If they were arbitration (heresy, i know) or some other cheaper/less intensive method of dispute resolution, google would likely (and often does) fight it.
But court cases are just really expensive and time consuming.
The average civil litigation takes 5-7 years to resolve.
They settled and deny wrongdoing to limit the impact. Now we have to wait for another set of age discrimination lawsuits to get more info about Google's practices... or we have to wait for the Government to get involved. Settling, basically tries to get the fire out before the Government decides to see what is going on. Given that Google has a hiring committee that reviews all applicants, this doesn't look good for Google... It'd be hard to argue that it's just a few managers and that it isn't a systematic issue rather than an "unconscious bias". Any company arguing "culture fit" in hiring decisions is making a poor argument. It's also hypocritical when they state that they want "diversity" in opinions, workers, etc...
We may also get more insight if/when Google goes after Federal contracts which have reporting requirements and stronger applicant protections.
Right, this is why it confuses me because it's been declared settled, a formal resolution outside of the court, the matter is resolved independently between the parties. It seems odd to settle this kind of class-action allegation while continue making statements about it after the fact.
Settlement offers this fun gap where they've paid people to not pursue them further, but don't have to actually admit they did anything wrong. And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't. Even if they do and had to pay people to settle a case for it.
And obviously, Google doesn't want people to believe they discriminate against people unfairly, so of course if they legally can, they're going to stand by their position that they don't
This is about on par with where my thinking was on this. I'm aware that these settlements are often contingent upon agreements from both parties regarding disclosing details of the settlement, and I suppose I assumed there was something in place here that prevented parties from speaking out about the settlement other than to release a statement saying 'a settlement was reached'.
I think it's common to forbid the parties from saying derogatory comments about the other party. Google can continue to say whatever it wants about itself.
Aka, the plaintiffs probably can't argue with Google's claim that they don't age discriminate, and Google probably can't say bad things about the people that sued them for it. But Google can continue to claim it treats all applicants fairly.
That's the entire point of settling vs going to trial. The problem goes away and they don't have to admit to anything. They also make the plaintiffs sign lengthy NDAs to prevent them from saying anything about it.
You know that thing we totally denied? Now that we've settled, we can admit it.
Cue four thousand new lawsuits
That's why.