One stereotype of the current tech atmosphere is that it’s dominated by young people–those of us who grew up using computers and other devices. Well it turns out that that stereotype might not be too far off. Moreover, according to a new lawsuit, it might be that way on purpose. Robert Heath, a 64-year-old engineer, is suing the king of all tech giants–Google–for age discrimination.

He claims that he had an interview with Google for an open position in software engineering for which he was qualified. His resume included successful positions in the same field at other reputable companies such as IBM and Compaq; however, Heath claims that he was not really seriously considered for the job, and that he wasn’t given a fair shot at the interview. The complaint Health filed states that:

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.

The complaint goes on to explain the issue with the interview, stating:

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

Heath was ultimately not offered the position he sought. He filed the lawsuit on April 22 in a San Jose, California federal court. He aims for it to be a class-action suit for anyone over the age of 40 who have been rejected from a job at Google.

Heath does seem at least supported by statistics about the median age at Google. According to Payscale.com, which relies on self reporting, the median age of Google employees is 30, which is certainly lower than the average age of the American worker. It’s even lower than the average worker in the computer science and engineering fields–the Department of Labor puts those median ages in the early-40 range.

Heath’s claim certainly isn’t the first time that Google has been accused of age discrimination. In another case, Reid v. Google, that was settled before it made it to trial, former executive Brian Reid claimed that he was discriminated against and eventually let go because of his age.

While Silicon Valley consistently makes the press for its dearth of racial and gender diversity, age discrimination seems to be a less consistent complaint. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen though–now Heath has the burden of claiming that it’s enough for the court to get involved.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Google Sued for Age Discrimination…Again appeared first on Law Street.

Silicon Valley and its main industries–tech companies and venture capital firms–has been long under fire for its lack of gender diversity. From depressing statistics about the diversity of various tech companies, to female developer Adria Richards live tweeting sexist comments at a tech conference in 2013, Silicon Valley has done plenty to live up to that reputation. However, if you’re looking for a pretty damning example of sexism in the industry, look no further than the recent Ellen Pao-Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers case, decided late last week. The decision concluded that the prominent VC firm didn’t discriminate against former employee Pao.

Pao, who is now the interim CEO of social media and news site “Reddit,” started at the prestigious venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caulfield & Byers in 2005. A graduate of Princeton, Harvard Law, and Harvard Business School, she was brought on as the chief of staff for John Doerr, one of the senior partners at the firm. Doerr–who was involved in the success of Netscape, Amazon, and Google–is well known as one of Kleiner’s most prominent voices. Pao was then made a junior investing partner, but was never made a senior partner, and was fired in 2012.

Her suit alleged that she was passed over for the senior partner promotion based on sex discrimination, that she was retaliated against for complaining about sex discrimination, and that she was fired because of the complaints she levied. Kleiner claimed that they treated her fairly, and passed her over because she was not going to be a good fit for the job. Pao argues that men with similar profiles and histories were promoted when she wasn’t. Pao’s suit asked for $16 million total, a combination of both punitive and compensatory damages.

The suit was decided against Pao–in other words, it was concluded that Kleiner was not guilty of sex discrimination. Based on the information that the jury had, I have no reason to believe they decided the case as anything other than fairly and to the best of their ability. But there’s an important distinction here–Kleiner can both be not discriminatory and still be a really crappy place to work.

That’s pretty much exactly what happened–Pao brought up a lot of pretty bad evidence about Kleiner’s employees and culture. While Kleiner did end up successful in the suit, they were still dragged through through the mud. Examples cited by Pao include Doerr, who had seemingly always been one of her biggest supporters and mentors, saying to an investor that she had “a female chip on her shoulder.” She also complained that partner Ajit Nazre retaliated against her after their consensual relationship ended. When she complained to Ray Lane, another high-ranking partner, he told her to marry Nazre to solve her problems. She claims another partner gave her a book of sexually explicit drawings, and that yet another didn’t invite women to parties because they “kill the buzz.” It wasn’t all just about Pao, either, as there was discussion of an incident in which Nazre showed up at a female junior partner’s hotel room in just a bathrobe, propositioning her.

So, while Kleiner may not have been guilty of discriminating against Pao specifically because of her gender, it’s pretty clear that they didn’t act appropriately at every turn. This isn’t any sort of surprising revelation–gender discrimination and sexism have long been alleged in Silicon Valley–but this case certainly didn’t help to dispel that concept. While Pao didn’t get her money, she certainly made her point.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ellen Pao Loses Sex Discrimination Lawsuit Against Kleiner appeared first on Law Street.

The possibility of government regulation of noncompete clauses in the business world has been a hot topic in recent months – especially throughout the tech industry. Now it seems that the debate has expanded to an array of other smaller industries, including the ever-so-competitive camp counseling field.

According to the New York Times, 19-year-old college student Colette Buser was passed over for a summer counselor job in Wellesley, Mass. in fear that nearby LINX camp would sue. Apparently Buser had a noncompete clause tucked into her contract from the previous summer, which prevented her from working within ten miles of a LINX location. According to the Times, everyone from “chefs to investment fund managers to yoga instructors, employees are increasingly required to sign agreements that prohibit them from working for a company’s rivals.”

LINX tried defending its actions to the Boston Herald, claiming that its training methods are just as crucial as the confidential intel that tech companies using noncompetes have. LINX President Joe Kahn said that the company uses these clauses because they train employees using unique methods and have seen counselors get hired mid-summer as babysitters. “Much like a tech company would be protective of their technology and proprietary information, we’re protective of our customer information,” said Kahn.

Buser is not the only person who has been affected by noncompete clauses recently. According to the Boston Herald there have been plenty of other instances where former employees found themselves in trouble because of a noncompete clause.

• A student trying to intern at a tech firm was requested to sign a one-year noncompete.
• A Massachusetts man whose job involved spraying pesticides on lawns was asked to sign a two-year noncompete agreement.
• A Boston University graduate was asked to sign a one-year noncompete for an entry-level social media job at a marketing firm.
• Phil Poireir, a pastor at a Megachurch in Seattle, was let go because he refused to sign a noncompete contract.
• A hair salon in Norwell, Mass., obtained an injunction requiring hairstylist Daniel McKinnon to stop working at a nearby salon because he had signed a noncompete, which prohibited him from working at any salon in neighboring towns for a year.

In McKinnon’s case, he was forced to live on unemployment benefits for months. “I almost lost my truck, I almost lost my apartment. Almost everything came sweeping out from under me,” McKinnon told the Times.

From the employer’s perspective, noncompete clauses make sense. The company has invested its time and money into training its employees, so it would only be logical to protect those investments. But it seems that some companies are taking it a bit overboard. Can one hairdresser really cause a business to flop? What does it say about your company if you’re trying to scare your employees to stay committed? These are the questions that businesses need to ask themselves when they put noncompete clauses in their employees’ contracts.

Many noncompete clauses put people like Daniel McKinnon out of work for weeks and even months at a time. MIT professor Matthew Marx thinks that people should have the freedom to come and go as they please. “There was a saying at the Silicon Valley startup where I worked, ‘You never stop hiring someone.’ They can go where they want. People are free to leave and start companies if they’re not happy,” Marx said.

Over the past year there has been a 60 percent rise in departing employees who face lawsuits from their former bosses for breaching these agreements, the Wall Street Journal reported. These disputes lead to long, drawn out court battles that impede productivity on both sides of the disagreement.

Many legislators are trying to bar noncompetes in various states throughout the country. State Representative and Vice Chairwoman of the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development, Lori Ehrlich,  contends that noncompetes are hurting growth in our economy by “decreasing working mobility and squelching startups.”

Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts has proposed a bill that will make it easier for workers in all types of industries to move from one job to another with ease by banning noncompete agreements. These agreements seem to cripple employees’ ability to be innovative, leaving them befuddled and frustrated with their inability to advance.

While the fear that former employees may take confidential information is understandable, companies should sue if, and only if, the former employee is caught doing so, not beforehand. Should their personal knowledge be considered company information? Does that make sense to anyone out there?

Currently, only California and North Dakota ban noncompete clauses according to the Herald. So if you are working for a company and you have a brilliant idea for a new startup, you can go to California or North Dakota and the judge will not honor the agreement. Since startups in North Dakota aren’t exactly booming, I would look to the Golden State.

— Trevor Smith Featured Image Courtesy of [Penn State via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Want to be a Camp Counselor? Better Check Your Noncompete Clause appeared first on Law Street.