(cache)Damore vs Google Class Action Lawsuit | Diversity (Business)

scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd. scribd.

1 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873) harmeet@dhillonlaw.com RAVDEEP S. GREWAL (SBN: 308447) rgrewal@dhillonlaw.com GREGORY R. MICHAEL (SBN: 306814) gmichael@dhillonlaw.com DHILLON LAW GROUP INC. 177 Post Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, California 94108 Telephone: (415) 433-1700 Facsimile: (415) 520-6593 Attorneys for Plaintiffs James Damore and David Gudeman, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA UNLIMITED JURISDICTION

JAMES DAMORE and DAVID GUDEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, Defendants. Case Number:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT: 1.

Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1101 2.

Violation of Cal. Labor Code § 1102 3.

Workplace Discrimination on the basis of Gender and/or Race in Violation of FEHA 4.

Workplace Harassment in Violation of FEHA 5.

Retaliation in Violation of FEHA 6.

Retaliation in Violation of Public Policy 7.

Retaliation in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code § 1102.5 8.

Failure To Prevent Harassment, Discrimination, and Retaliation 9.

Unfair Business Practices, Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200

et seq.

10.

Declaratory Relief DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

18CV321529

E-FILED

1/8/2018 9:43 AM

Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA,

County of Santa Clara

18CV321529

Reviewed By: R. Walker

2 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1.

James Damore (“Damore”) and David Gudeman (“Gudeman” (together, “Plaintiffs”), through their attorneys, Dhillon Law Group Inc., file this Complaint against Google, LLC. (“Google”), a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1-10 (Google and Does, collectively, “Defendants”). Upon personal knowledge, or, if so indicated, upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege as follows:

CASE SUMMARY

2.

Plaintiffs bring this individual and class action on behalf of themselves and on behalf of a class and subclasses defined as all employees of Google discriminated against (i) due to their perceived conservative political views by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning four years prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Political Class Period”); (ii) due to their male gender by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Gender Class Period”); and/or (iii) due to their Caucasian race by Google in California at any time during the time period beginning one year prior to the filing of this Complaint through the date of trial in this action (“Race Class Period”) (Political Class Period, Gender Class Period, and Race Class Period referred to collectively, as “Class Periods”). These violations also subject Google to claims for violation of California’s Business and Professions Code section 17200

et seq.

1

3.

Throughout the Class Periods, and in violation of California law, Google employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as “diversity” hiring policies, “bias sensitivity,” or “social justice,” were/are singled out, mistreated, and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights. 4.

Google’s open hostility for conservative thought is paired with invidious discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred by law. Google’s management goes to extreme—and illegal—lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and

1

In addition, Plaintiffs intend to assert claims under the Private Attorney General Act of California, when those claims are perfected.

3 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 male employees and potential employees at Google. 5.

Damore, Gudeman, and other class members were ostracized, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males. This is the essence of discrimination—Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics. 6.

Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so. 7.

Google employs illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others. 8.

Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class Periods. 9.

Plaintiffs bring this action to vindicate their legal rights, and to stop Google from repeating these practices against other employees or prospective employees now, and in the future.

THE PARTIES

10.

Damore is an individual who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, worked in Mountain View, California for Google as a Senior Software Engineer, a Software Engineer, and an Intern. Damore was an employee of Google from 2013 until his wrongful termination on August 7,

4 Complaint

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2017. 11.

Gudeman is an individual who, at all times relevant to the Complaint, worked in Mountain View, California for Google as a Software Engineer. Gudeman was an employee of Google until his wrongful termination.

Gudeman worked for Google from 2013 to December 2016. 12.

Google is a corporation that, at all times relevant to the Complaint, was incorporated under the laws of the state of Delaware, with its principal place of business in Santa Clara County, California. Google is registered with the California Secretary of State for the purpose of transacting business in California. Google is the direct employer of the named Plaintiffs. 13.

Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that DOES 1 through 10 are the partners, agents, owners, shareholders, managers, or employees of Defendants, and are, or at relevant time were, acting on their behalf. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names or capacities of the Defendants sued herein under the fictitious names DOES 1 through 10, but prays for leave to amend and serve such fictitiously named Defendants once their names and capacities become known.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14.

This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the California Constitution, Article VI, Section 10, which grants the Superior Court “original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other courts.” 15.

This Court has jurisdiction over all Defendants because, upon information and belief, each Defendant is either a citizen of California, has sufficient minimum contacts in California, or otherwise intentionally avails himself or itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it or him by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 16.

Venue is proper in this Court because, upon information and belief, Google resides, transacts business, and/or has offices in the County of Santa Clara, and most of the unlawful practices, acts, and omissions alleged herein took place in the County of Santa Clara.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

17.

On November 30, 2017, Damore filed an administrative complaint against Google with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”), and was issued a right-

Blocking the Courthouse Door: How the Republican Party and Its Corporate Allies Are Taking Away Your Right to Sue

by Stephanie Mencimer

Harvard Law Review: Volume 127, Number 1 - November 2013

by Harvard Law Review

The Class Action Fairness Act: Law and Strategy

by American Bar Association

Recommended Documents

Documents Similar To James Damore Lawsuit

More From M Mali