Google pays $11M to job-seekers who alleged age discrimination

Post by blub » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 5:55 AM UTC

moksly wrote: post #44

Recently the Danish company KMD was caught utilising a no hiring of anyone above the age of 36 policy. A practice they’ve apparently used for a decade. That’s illegal and they’ll likely be punished, but the interesting part is that they are doing terrible. They have the largest amount of scandals, the largest amount of settlements for not meeting what they promised and the largest financial drop of any major Danish I…

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 6:32 AM UTC

dmitrygr wrote: post #55

josefx wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were all good enough to get in person interviews at least[1]. If I read that document correctly Google would have been able to argue about the qualifications of various individuals and have them removed from the lawsuit after discovery concluded. Of course I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong. [1]see court document on https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/bizwomen/news/latest-news...

Phone screens at google are not foolproof, and some candidates get to skip them for various reasons. I've seem some candidates make it to onsite and then be unable to answer my warmup question of: write a function that takes an integer, leaves all the zero bits alone, changes all the one bits into zero bits, and returns the result.

Post by jaclaz » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 7:58 AM UTC

onemoresoop wrote: post #71

jaclaz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't doubt that, it was just an attempt to put the numbers in pespective, if you believe that it is only 1 month or 15 days of wage it is ok as well, but what was the actual inconvenience to them? Let's bring it to the extreme, 35,000 US$ for the hassle of making four (fruitless) interviews?

It's very demoralizing to be realize nobody wants to hire you because you're over a certain age. So this is not about the inconvenience of wasting time with the interview but more generally about age discrimination.

Post by glenneroo » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 1:22 PM UTC

chadash wrote: post #16

rchaud wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google has salaried in-house counsel. I'm pretty sure they could afford to go to court more easily than the plaintiffs.

Companies settle all the time. It's common for insurance claims, for example. At a not-for-profit organization I'm involved with, a homeless person punched someone on the sidewalk outside their property. The victim then turned around and sued the organization, who had nothing to do with the incident except that it technically happened on their property (which is in an urban area). The president of the organization wa…

Post by ergothus » Tue, Jul 23, 2019, 4:29 PM UTC

repolfx wrote: post #154

Quekid5 wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any published research-level evidence that FAANG interviews are high-signal? I'm no expert, but the only published research I've read on this is "Thinking, Fast and Slow", and the original researcher has recently cast doubt on his own results on that study. Regardless, the evidence there was that all that mattered was "any objectively measurable metric" -- which would mean that FAANGs are wasting a lot of ti…

You mean, beyond the companies being successful and effective, and famous for the skill of their workforce? Beyond 9 of the top 10 most valuable companies in America being tech firms that all interview in similar ways? What kind of evidence that tech interviews work well are you looking for, exactly? Isn't the obvious evidence of your own eyes sufficient?