Eric Steinert Quoted in MSNBC.com, CNET.com, E-Commerce Times, NewsFactor.com, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, the Daily Journal, and Business Insurance
Discussing Reid v. Google California Supreme Court Decision

Eric Steinert was quoted in the following publications on August 5, 2010 and August 6, 2010 discussing the California Supreme Court's decision in Reid v. Google: MSNBC.com, CNET.com, E-Commerce Times, NewsFactor.com, San Francisco Chronicle, San Jose Mercury News, and the Daily Journal. On August 23, 2010, he was also quoted in Business Insurance discussing the case. The NewsFactor.com article was picked up by YahooNews!.com, Sci-Tech Today, and Top Tech News. In a unanimous ruling, the court found that Brian Reid, a 54-year-old former manager at Google Inc., presented enough evidence of possible bias to allow a jury to decide whether he was dismissed in February 2004 because of his age. According to the coverage, justices rejected Google's argument that slurs by fellow employees and those not directly involved in the firing, so-called "stray remarks," are irrelevant to this discrimination case.

In the San Francisco Chronicle article, Eric noted that the ruling will make it harder for businesses to win dismissals of discrimination suits. He added, "More cases will go to trial," and juries will hear more evidence of "general workplace comments." He built on this point in his comments to the San Jose Mercury News noting that the ruling means "it will be easier for plaintiffs to get a jury because in the past employers relied fairly heavily on this stray remarks doctrine. The consequence of that is going to be more trials, more pressure to settle, and perhaps more evidence coming in at trial regarding these remarks."

According to MSNBC.com, following the ruling, Reid and potentially many other employees who feel they are being looked down upon at work because of their age, gender, race, etc., can support their claims of being unjustly fired or demoted even if their boss let them go and never said a negative word to them. Eric explained, "Federal employment law says you can't consider those remarks. In California, the court is saying, yes they can." The ruling, he continued, "is not good news for employers."

Eric explained to E-Commerce Times that "Having that doctrine now unavailable in California will make summary judgment more difficult. As a result, more cases will likely go to jury, and there will be more pressure to settle those cases. For cases that go to trial, it will become more likely that workplace comments unrelated to the actual employment decision will come into evidence." As a result, Eric added, this decision changes the overall landscape for employers in employment discrimination cases, where general workplace comments unrelated to the employment decision are used to buttress the plaintiff's case.

Business Insurance reported on the case and included a comment from Eric explaining that California employers "had relied heavily and successfully" on the stray remarks doctrine in discrimination cases "where the plaintiff was relying on a remark or comment in the workplace that was not directly related to the employment decision." He added that as a short-term result of the decision, "it will be harder for employers to get summary judgment in cases where they previously would have relied on that doctrine." Eric concluded that in the long run though, "weak employment discrimination cases will still be subject to summary judgment. It's just that employers will not be able to rely as heavily on federal cases, and judges will have greater latitude to consider comments in the workplace, even if they don't directly tie into the employment decision."