• Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • Whistleblower Resources
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
The Truth at Any Cost.
Qui Tam, Compliance and Anti-Corruption News.
SIGN THE PETITION FOR NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER DAY IN 2023
Whistleblower Network News
  • Qui Tam
  • SEC
  • CFTC
  • FCPA
  • Whistleblower Resources
  • FAQS
Subscribe
Donate
No Result
View All Result
Whistleblower Network News
No Result
View All Result
Home Corporate

California Supreme Court smacks down abuses of summary judgment

WNN StaffbyWNN Staff
August 9, 2010
in Corporate, News
Reading Time: 3 mins read
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedInEmail

Last week, the California Supreme Court issued a blunt decision decrying the way that employers and too many lower court abuse summary judgment to prevent employees from getting their cases to a jury.  The case is Reid v. Google, Inc., Case No. S158965 (8/5/2010).

Brian Reid has a Ph.D. in computer science, and used to teach at Stanford University.  Google hired him in 2002 to be director of engineering and operations. Reid was 52 years old at the time. In 2003, Google gave Reid a glowing evaluation. But a younger vice president called him "slow" and his ideas were "obsolete" and "too old to matter." Others called him "old man" and "fuddy duddy." Then Google demoted him and denied him any bonus. In February 2004, Google fired him claiming job elimination and poor performance. Reid sued claiming age discrimination. Reid collected statistics to show that Google had discriminated against other older workers. Google made a motion for summary judgment claiming that Reid could not prove his case. The trial court judge agreed saying that Reid could not prove that Google’s stated reasons were "pretextual." In essence, the judge told Reid, "since you can’t prove that Google was lying, you can’t win." The court of appeals disagreed and ordered that the case go back for a trial. Google then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Support Whistleblower Network News

On the "stray remarks" issue, the Supreme Court said that the court of appeals correctly considered the vice president’s statements as relevant evidence of discrimination. The court relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. (2000) 530 U.S. 133, 152-153, which held that it is up to the jury to decide of such comments indicate that illegal discrimination motivated the employer. At page 37, the court said, "Although stray remarks may not have strong probative value when viewed in isolation, they may corroborate direct evidence of discrimination or gain significance in conjunction with other circumstantial evidence."

The court made light of an employer practice to distinguish who was the official "decisionmaker" and then object to any evidence about any other company official who might have a discriminatory motive. The court noted that it can be difficult to tell who really participated in the decision. The weight to be given to any particular remarks will necessarily involve consideration of who made the remarks, but that decision is for the jury, not the judge.

The court also criticized a practice I have seen too many company lawyers use: the full court press objecting to all your evidence.  Quoting another court, the California Supreme Court said, "all too often, litigants file blunderbuss objections to virtually every item of evidence submitted." The court added, "litigants should focus on the objections that really count. Otherwise, they may face informal reprimands or formal sanctions for engaging in abusive practices." This is exactly the type of warning we needed about abuse of summary judgment.

This decision should help remove one of the major barriers for whistleblowers trying to prove retaliation in California. Hopefully other states, and the federal courts, will join in this movement to reject summary judgment abuse and respect the role of the jury.

Tags: Corporate Whistleblowers
Previous Post

Russia’s YouTube Whistleblower

Next Post

ARB protects duty speech, but not investigating duties

WNN Staff

WNN Staff

Next Post

ARB protects duty speech, but not investigating duties

Please login to join discussion

Receive Daily Alerts

Subscribe to receive daily breaking news and legislative developments sent to your inbox.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Most Popular

Change the Culture, Make National Whistleblower Day Permanent

Tell President Biden to “Finish the Job” for Whistleblowers

Whistleblower Advocates See Parallels to Enron in Silicon Valley Bank Collapse

Whistleblower Jóhannes Stefánsson Plans to Testify at Fishrot Trial in Namibia

WNN Exclusive Interview with Social Security Whistleblowers Sarah Carver and Jennifer Griffith — Part 1

Whistleblower Raised Concerns of Rodents, Spiders in Kitchen of Childcare Facility, Then Fired; OSHA Rules They Were Retaliated Against

Whistleblower Poll

Whistleblower Poll
Whistleblower Poll

Exclusive Marist Poll: Overwhelming Public Support Among Likely Voters For Increased Whistleblower Protections

byGeoff Schweller
October 6, 2020

ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

STAY INFORMED.
Subscribe to receive breaking whistleblower updates.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

About Us

  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Donate
  • Careers

Subscribe

  • Daily Mail
  • Follow us on Twitter
  • YouTube Channel

Contribute

  • Letter to the Editor
  • Submission Guidelines
  • Reprint Guidelines

Your Experience

  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use

Help

  • The Whistleblowers Handbook
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Advertise
Whistleblower Network News

Whistleblower Network News is an independent online newspaper providing our readers with up-to-date information on whistleblowing. Our goal is to be the best source of information on important qui tam, anti-corruption, compliance, and whistleblower law developments. 

Submit an Article

Copyright © 2021, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

This Newspaper/Web Site is made available by the publisher for educational purposes only as well as to give you general information and a general understanding of the law, not to provide specific legal advice. By using this website, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the Newspaper/Web Site publisher. The Newspaper/Web Site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed professional attorney in your state.

SIGN THE PETITION FOR NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWER DAY IN 2023
No Result
View All Result
  • Exclusives
  • Government
    • False Claims-Qui Tam
    • Federal Employees
    • Intelligence
  • Corporate
    • CFTC & Commodities
    • Dodd-Frank
    • IRS & Tax
    • SEC & Securities
  • Features
  • Legislation
  • International
    • Foreign Corruption
  • Rewards
  • Whistleblower of the Week
  • Environment & Climate
  • Opinion
  • Editorial
  • Employment
    • Sarbanes-Oxley Whistleblowers
    • Retaliation
    • OSHA
  • Media
    • Podcasts
    • Videos
    • Webinars
    • National Whistleblower Day
  • Whistleblower Poll
  • Whistleblower Resources
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Resources for Locating An Attorney
    • The New Whistleblowers Handbook
  • National Whistleblower Day ’23

Copyright © 2020, Whistleblower Network News. All Rights Reserved.

Become a Whistleblower Network News Subscriber

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Subscribe to WNN

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Subscribe to WNN

Add New Playlist

Go to mobile version