Google being investigated for age discrimination
Isn’t age just a number? Apparently not…
A lawsuit filed in federal court shows that the EEOC is investigating formal complaints about Google and its recent age discrimination. This comes after various typed of engineers and developers of ‘older age were declined employment opportunities by the company.
"The magic word 'diversity' doesn't seem to apply to age in Silicon Valley," Matloff said. "Age discrimination is rampant in the industry. We're not talking about age 55 necessarily -- it even occurs at age 35."
This investigation comes at a time when there is an increased awareness for lack of racial diversity in Silicon Valley. In a recent release of its employment breakdown, Google did not incorporate age with attributes such as race and gender. For many years, companies in the valley have been known for hiring youth contributing to their forward looking reputation.
Many who were ‘too old’ for jobs at Google are filing class action lawsuits against the company. These lawsuits cover time periods that span all the way back from 2010. Among them, Robert Heath, a software engineer and Cheryl Fillekes, a system engineer.
The anti-discrimination suit was filed last year by Robert Heath and alleges that Google “engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of discriminating against individuals (including Mr. Heath) who are age 40 and older in hiring, compensation, and other employment decisions.”
Doing some further internet research, there have been plenty of articles and news on age discrimination in the valley in the past, but I guess not as serious as a lawsuit. I never really thought of people over 40 working in Silicon Valley and I guess the main reason why would be that maybe they demand too much compensation? I am trying to think like Google here. Maybe someone with a lot of years of experience in the industry might clash heads with Google, thus their lack of wanting older professionals? Even if this is the case, there could be much more lawsuits headed Google’s way.
Thoughts?
Would love to hear from some people in the valley or folks who have friends that are close to the company to provide some color on this.
For an industry that is viewed as being conservative finance is quite liberal with who can join as long as they bring in the money of course.
Older employees might have a little of the blame because they refuse to go up in management which from an economic point of view could be considered inefficient. These people have the skills and experience necessary to coordinate and guide younger employees but other reasons could be that they refuse to update their skills and are complacent with what they know. If they want to program their whole life they can start their own firm albeit they would need some starting capital and the will to maintain and lead one.
I agree that a lot of them can be set in their ways, however, are those who are the exception to that and are willing to keep an open mind aren't getting hired for reasons beyond age discrimination?
Ageism in finance is just as bad, if not worse, as in Silicon Valley.
Also, I don't understand what you're getting at by mentioning "older employees might have a little of the blame". There's a clear difference between older people who aren't hired because they're underqualified and age discrimination. There's an unspoken rule in finance and most of tech that you just don't hire older people for certain positions. Veterans, immigrants, and people of other nontraditional backgrounds (among others) are adversely affected by these discriminatory rules. It's pathetic.
I tend to agree however, it doesn't help when the only people over the age of 40 getting jobs in the valley are "industry rock stars". Honestly, it should be up to the company in my opinion, as bad as that might sound, even if some minority hires were to happen, that doesn't mean that the company wouldn't still continue to hire who they consider to be a "target employee" for their company.
Companies are free to hire or not hire anyone they please.
This is labour market inefficiency, due to behavioural reasons. In a free market society, those experienced individuals, who are being rejected simply due to their age, will eventually be employed by some intelligent entrepreneur who realises and acts on this inefficiency.
Innovating and taking advantage of economic inefficiencies is a major reason 'Silicon Valley' exists and is as successful as it is today. If there comes a time where people within SV start to exhibit the same inefficiencies they once sought to take advantage of, there will be other entrepreneurs who will come along and eat their lunch.
Assuming there isn't more to these stories, of course.
If you think women, minorities, or (gasp) old people (40!!!) don't face any discrimination, then congrats on the sturdiness of your bubble.
I never said they didn't...
The purpose of my post was not even to cast doubt on this. You're jumping to conclusions.
Jesus, you are a liberal pussy. Shut the fuck up.
delete
I'm going to tread lightly here since I think you're only a student and mean well by sharing your recent enlightenment on economic theory with a bunch of older, lesser educated, washed up financial industry employees.
Your comment is, frankly, false.
Your coursework on efficient markets is great lens to view the world through. But sexism, racism and ageism can create terrible effects for individuals in markets. These "inefficiencies" can take years, decades or even centuries to overcome. Regulation can dramatically speed this process when its in the public good.
It might be "efficient", for example, for markets to pay less to women if the female population on average has a higher stay at home rate, lower retirement age, smaller % seeking management positions, etc, and it can incentivize a higher reproductive rate (create more future labor) as it makes more sense for the male half of a relationship to focus on his career if the markets pay him more. So an efficient market might tilt towards this behavior. This is catastrophic and completely unfair, however, for women who don't fall into this bias or stereotype and want to have a long fulfilling career (or even those who want a shorter career but give a commensurate performance in the interim, while financially planning to raise a family etc). Regulation can help eliminate this bias that might be "capital markets & resources efficient" but fundamentally wrong at an individual level.
Regardless of one's own thoughts on the morality of hiring a younger workforce, such regulation clearly exists against ageism, to protect older workers for the same reasons as above. And so no, it is not the right of Silicon Valley to decide on a massive scale that they don't want to hire older employees because their image will be cooler/more innovative/more forward thinking with a younger workforce (or whatever other reason a firm may disguise ageism as). It is just as illegal as Wal-Mart refusing to promote women.
While your comment that it is SV's right to hire only the young is incorrect regarding the current regulatory environment, I would encourage you to stifle your likely sudden urge to reply with tailored quotes from your esteemed professors and favorite economists. Instead, show the maturity to view these problems from both ends of the spectrum - capital markets efficiency and effects on individuals. Think of it as the "Macro/Micro" of labor resource analysis. It will serve you well in the long run.
And when you are a hiring manager one day, remember it is never your right to hire, fire or review based on anything other than someone's professional performance and work ethic.
I agree with much (not all) of what you're saying, but you're the classic case of the insufferable, condescending liberal. A lot of people have thought through issues as much as you have and have come to the very opposite conclusion. In fact, my company had to hire a real estate development professional for a senior position. This field is overwhelmingly dominated by men, so we utilized the inefficiencies in the hiring market to hire a highly qualified female development professional at an exceptional rate. So yes, private companies who care about the bottom line can--and do--take advantage of market inefficiencies.
Companies are free to hire who they please, however, they may not decline an applicant due to age. And pawning it off to the "free market" is a stretch. You can't say, "well, the free market will correct this inefficiency." This "inefficiency" may be an injustice. Your argument of "inefficiency" seems to hint that there was in fact discrimination, because if it was efficient the best candidate, regardless of age, would have been hired.
While it is impossible to say if there was actual age discrimination, if several credible people are making allegations, it does not seem to be a stretch that there are some suspicious hiring practices in the companies in question.
Milton Friedman touches on this matter and much more eloquently than I have:
Very real issue. There's likely no fix for this because age discrimination is so hard to prove. My only advice is to save as much money as you can while young and hope to have enough to retire by 50. Getting a job after that will be pretty hard.
That's quite hard for most but I agree, definitely have to save as much as possible...social security is shite.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/juniorization-when-young-workers-replace-th…
You think it won't happen to you? Think twice, young monkeys. This will occur for the foreseeable future so you better make sure you're on your A game and keep your eyes peeled for people looking to chop off your head.
Silicon Valley is full of insufferable hypocrites. On one hand, Silicon Valley universally condescendingly preaches progressive values; on the other hand, sexual harassment and age, gender, and race discrimination are known to be rampant in the Valley. It's like Hillary Clinton condescending to blacks in a speech and then boarding her private jet and returning to her mansion in Chappaqua, NY, which is 91% white.
What do you think the %s of people over the age of 40 that work in the Valley?
Perspiciatis eaque nam esse in velit sequi qui. Et rerum suscipit architecto sed fuga odit quia corrupti. Voluptas id consequatur et labore aut voluptates.
Qui deleniti ducimus molestias rerum est est. Non est et animi eius alias odio nisi ea.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...