The California Supreme Court issued an opinion last week in which it refused to disregard stray comments about an ex-employee’s age as evidence of discrimination.
The opinion rejected the “stray remarks doctrine” introduced by Justice O’Connor in 1981 in a Supreme Court opinion and sometimes applied by federal courts in discrimination cases in order to exclude discriminatory comments that are made outside the decision-making context. In other words, under the doctrine, comments by co-workers or supervisors who were not directly involved in a particular employment decision are not relevant in determining whether there was discrimination.
In the case, Reid v. Google, a 54-year-old former manager for the Internet search engine giant filed an age discrimination lawsuit under California law, in which he alleged his termination for poor performance and job elimination was really because of age. Mr. Reid’s allegations included three categories of derogatory remarks:
- Co-workers made comments, including calling him “old man” and “old guy” and referred to him as an “old fuddy-duddy.”
- A younger supervisor, who did not play a role in Mr. Reid’s termination, called him “slow,” “obsolete,” and “too old to matter.”
- A third supervisor, who also did not play a direct role in Mr. Reid’s termination, told Mr. Reid the reason he was terminated was because he “was not a cultural fit” with the company.
The trial court, applying the stray remarks doctrine, dismissed the case, finding Mr. Reid could not establish discrimination because none of the comments came from those directly involved in the termination decision. However, in last week’s opinion, the California Supreme Court stated it would be unfair to ignore remarks by those not directly involved in the termination decision. The court further explained it declined to adopt the stray remarks doctrine because although the co-workers did not take part in employment decisions, they still may have had an influence on the decision-makers.
The Reid opinion highlights the need to ensure that discriminatory comments by anyone, including employees not involved in employment decisions, will not be tolerated.
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney.
This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary.
The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites.
In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.