Google fails to ensure that the lawsuit was originally filed by James Damore

Judge Brian Walsh of the Santa Clara County Superior Court has dismissed the Google tech giant's efforts to overturn the lawsuit of former Google engineer James Damore, Mercury News reported on Friday. which means that the case can now proceed to the discovery phase.

Google sacked Damore in August 2017 after writing a lengthy anti-diversity paper, claiming that the inherent psychological differences between men and women rather than sexism explain the gender gaps in technology and leadership roles ( an argument rich in scientific holes). He also claimed that Google was dominated by "leftist prejudices", was "alienating conservatives" and had engaged in "discriminatory practices" to increase diversity in the workplace. This document was published by Gizmodo after its viral diffusion internally at Google; After his dismissal, Damore became a sort of famous cause among conservatives, ranging from leading activists to the far right.

Damore, along with his ex-googling colleague David Gudeman, filed a class action lawsuit against Google in January 2018, alleging that the company had illegally discriminated against them on the basis of their conservative politics, their male race and their "Caucasian race". The Hollywood Reporter, they then amended the lawsuit to "add as complainants two men who were denied to Google, Stephen McPherson and Michael Burns, and another employee who eventually rejected his requests voluntarily." The case also alleges discrimination against Asian candidates.

In early 2018, the National Labor Relations Board had decided that Damore's comments criticizing Google were protected by law, but that his comments on diversity were not a conclusion, concluding that the company was entitled to return. In November 2018, Damore and Gudeman agreed to settle their claims by arbitration. The reporter noted that, according to the reporter, only McPherson and Burns remain in Google's lawsuit.

According to the reporter, Google requested that the allegations of political bias raised in the class action be dismissed, stating that the lawsuit did not adequately explain who could be considered as part of the group or how they would be identified. The reporter wrote that Walsh rejected the application, although apparently skeptical about the complainants' ability to solve the problem:

In an interim decision, Brian Walsh, a judge in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, admits that the court "has doubts about the viability of the alleged political underclass," but is not ready to find the requirements for obtaining class certification.

"Ultimately, it will be up to plaintiffs to demonstrate that political subclass certification is appropriate," writes Walsh. "The Court anticipates that this will not be an easy burden to satisfy; however, arguments do not state that there is no reasonable opportunity to do so. "

Walsh also denied Google's request for a ruling on discrimination pleas against Asians "for procedural and substantive reasons," which means that this element could be included in the future.

As noted by Mercury News, Walsh's rulings pave the way for the initiation of the proceeding, where plaintiffs and Google may seek internal documents from the other party to try to prove or disprove the allegations.

Legal experts have (for the most part) largely ignored the chances of trial.

"I think [Damore’s] The odds are terrible, "said MarketWatch, shortly after the filing, AJ Bhowmik, managing partner of Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, San Diego. "The judge will take the facts into consideration. We live in a backward world where a person can claim to be discriminated against as a white man "when Google disproportionately employs men and women.

"It's a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of freedom of expression," said David Sanford, president of Sanford Heisler Sharp LLP, in Forbes in 2017. "…[Employees] does not have the right to do, is to say anything stupid that goes through their heads. For the Conservatives to call themselves "shocked, shocked", they must consult the constitution and jurisprudence. "The special attorney of Cole Schotz's litigation department, Neoma Ayala, told Forbes that in Damore's memo," If you replaced "woman" with "black", nobody, "we would have not even this conversation. "

[Mercury News/Hollywood Reporter]