Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 1 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`CARSON H. SULLIVAN (admitted pro hac vice)
`carsonsullivan@paulhastings.com
`MADALYN K. DOUCET (admitted pro hac vice)
`madalyndoucet@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, D.C. 20036
`Telephone: 1(202) 551-1700
`Facsimile: 1(202) 551-1705
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Google LLC
`
`(Additional counsel for Defendant Google LLC on next page)
`
`
`
`APRIL CURLEY, individually and on behalf
`of all others similarly situated,
`Plaintiff,
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`OAKLAND DIVISION
`
`CASE NO. 4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S NOTICE
`OF MOTION, PARTIAL MOTION TO
`DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`vs.
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Hearing Date: November 22, 2022
`Time: 2:00 PM
`Courtroom: 1, 1301 Clay Street, 4th Fl.,
` Oakland, CA 94612
`Judge: Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez
` Rogers
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 2 of 32
`
`
`
`EMILY R. PIDOT (SB# 233241)
`emilypidot@paulhastings.com
`SARA B. TOMEZSKO (admitted pro hac vice)
`saratomezsko@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Telephone: 1(212) 318-6000
`Facsimile: 1(212) 319-4090
`
`FELICIA A. DAVIS (SB# 266523)
`feliciadavis@paulhastings.com
`ANKUSH DHUPAR (SB# 307689)
`ankushdhupar@paulhastings.com
`LINDSEY C. JACKSON (SB# 313396)
`lindseyjackson@paulhastings.com
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`515 S. Flower Street
`Twenty-Fifth Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-2228
`Telephone: 1(213) 683-6000
`Facsimile: 1(213) 627-0705
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Google LLC
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 3 of 32
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................................ 3 
`RELEVANT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ....................................................................... 4 
`A.
`Google Hired Plaintiffs in Different Offices to Perform Different Roles. .............. 4 
`B.
`Plaintiffs Vaguely Allege “Underleveling” and Discrimination in Pay.................. 4 
`C.
`Plaintiffs Allege No Common Practice With Regard to Promotions. ..................... 5 
`D.
`Plaintiffs’ Managers Assessed Their Performance in Different Ways. .................. 5 
`E.
`Plaintiffs Allege That Their Individual Managers and Colleagues Subjected
`Them to Harassment and Retaliation. ..................................................................... 5 
`Plaintiffs Curley, Mayon, and Reid Left Google under Differing
`Circumstances. ........................................................................................................ 6 
`Plaintiffs Curley, Mayon, Lewis, and Reid Challenge Every Possible
`Employment Action on Behalf of Nearly All Black Employees at Google. .......... 7 
`Plaintiffs Aweh and Thomas Unsuccessfully Applied for Positions at
`Google. .................................................................................................................... 8 
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 9 
`A.
`The Court May Dispose of Class Allegations at the Pleading Stage. ..................... 9 
`B.
`A Court May Dismiss New York Claims for Lack of Subject Matter
`Jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). .......................................................................... 10 
`PLAINTIFFS’ PROPOSED EMPLOYEE CLASSES, ON THEIR FACE, ARE
`FAR TOO BROAD TO PLAUSIBLY BE CERTIFIED. ................................................. 11 
`A.
`The Proposed Employee Classes Are Facially Overbroad. .................................. 11 
`B.
`The SAC Demonstrates on its Face that Plaintiffs Cannot Satisfy Rule 23’s
`Requirements Because Individual Questions Predominate. .................................. 14 
`PLAINTIFFS' TITLE VII AND SECTION 1981 HIRING CLASS IS
`SIMILARLY OVERBROAD. .......................................................................................... 18 
`VII. PLAINTIFF CURLEY FAILS TO STATE INDIVIDUAL OR CLASS CLAIMS
`UNDER NEW YORK STATE AND CITY LAW. .......................................................... 19 
`VIII. PLAINTIFF AWEH'S INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS STATE LAW HIRING
`CLAIMS SHOULD BE DISMISSED. ............................................................................. 22 
`THE COURT SHOULD STRIKE ALL CLASS DEFINITIONS AS
`TEMPORALLY OVERBROAD. ..................................................................................... 24 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 25 
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`H.
`
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- i -
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 4 of 32
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Ali v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 18-CV-03981-LHK, 2019 WL 1369926 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2019) ............................... 23
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................................ 3, 9, 10
`
`Associated Gen. Contractors of Cal., Inc. v. Cal. State Council of Carpenters,
`459 U.S. 519 (1983) ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ............................................................................................................ 3, 10
`
`Bennett v. Nucor Corp.,
`656 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................... 14
`
`Beverley v. N.Y. City Health & Hosps. Corp.,
`No. 18 CV 8486 (ER), 2020 WL 1503421 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 30, 2020) ................................... 23
`
`Chen-Oster v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.,
`325 F.R.D. 55 (S.D.N.Y. 2018) .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Cobb v. Arc Energy Servs., Inc.,
`No. 0:21-CV-01913-JMC, 2022 WL 970093 (D.S.C. Mar. 31, 2022) ................................... 22
`
`Collins v. Gamestop Corp.,
`No. C10-1210-TEH, 2010 WL 3077671 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010) ........................................ 11
`
`Comcast Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n of Afr. Am.-Owned Media,
`140 S. Ct. 1009 (2020) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`Cruz v. SEIU Loc. 32BJ,
`No. 19 CIV. 11836, 2021 WL 3604661 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2021) ....................................... 22
`
`Daniels v. City of New York,
`No. 17 CIV. 9960 (LGS), 2019 WL 251511 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 17, 2019) ............................ 20, 21
`
`Dodd-Owens v. Kyphon, Inc.,
`No. C 06-3988, 2007 WL 420191 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2007) ............................................. 24, 25
`
`Donaldson v. Microsoft Corp.,
`205 F.R.D. 558 (W.D. Wash. 2001) ....................................................................................... 14
`
`Duran v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`59 Cal. 4th 1 (2014) ................................................................................................................ 17
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 5 of 32
`
`Elkins v. Am. Showa Inc.,
`219 F.R.D. 414 (S.D. Ohio 2002) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`Eng v. New York City Police Dep’t,
`No. 95 CIV. 5845, 1996 WL 521421 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 12, 1996) ........................................... 21
`
`Enoh v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`No. 17-CV-04212-BLF, 2018 WL 3377547 (N.D. Cal. July 11, 2018) ................................. 25
`
`Gen. Tel. Co. of the Sw. v. Falcon,
`457 U.S. 147 (1982) .......................................................................................................... 10, 18
`
`Gonsalves v. Infosys Techs., LTD.,
`No. C 09-04112 MHP, 2010 WL 1854146 (N.D. Cal. May 6, 2010) ..................................... 24
`
`Harris v. City of Chicago,
`Nos. 96 CV 3406, 96 CV 7526, 1998 WL 59873 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 1998) ............................. 18
`
`Henderson v. Physician Affiliate Grp. of New York P.C.,
`No. 18-CV-3430 (JMF), 2019 WL 3778504 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2019) .......................... 22, 23
`
`Hoffman v. Parade Publ’ns,
`15 N.Y.3d 285 (2010) ....................................................................................................... 11, 21
`
`Holloway v. Best Buy Co.,
`No. C 05-5056 PJH, 2009 WL 1533668 (N.D. Cal. May 28, 2009) ....................................... 22
`
`Huddleston v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco,
`No. 16-cv-01998-YGR, 2016 WL 4729175 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2016) ............................ 9, 20
`
`Hughes v. WinCo Foods,
`No. CV11-00644 JAK, 2012 WL 34483 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) ......................................... 13
`
`Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters v. United States,
`431 U.S. 324 (1977) ................................................................................................................ 14
`
`Jackson v. Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc.,
`14-cv-02485, 2017 WL 9482238 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 21, 2017) ................................................... 22
`
`Kassner v. 2nd Ave. Delicatessen Inc.,
`496 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2007) .................................................................................................... 20
`
`Kevari v. Scottrade, Inc.,
`No. CV 18-819-JFW(GJSx), 2018 WL 6136822 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) .................. passim
`
`King v. UA Local 91,
`No. 2:19-CV-01115-KOB, 2020 WL 4003019 (N.D. Ala. July 15, 2020) ............................. 17
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 6 of 32
`
`Lambui v. Collins,
`No. 14-CV-6457 (JS) (AYS), 2015 WL 5821589 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 30, 2015) ................. 11, 21
`
`
`
`Mackenzie Architects, PC v. VLG Real Estate Dev., LLC,
`No. 1:15-CV-1105, 2016 WL 4703736 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 8, 2016) ......................................... 21
`
`McKinney v. Tanner,
`18-cv-10548, 2019 WL 3067116 (S.D.N.Y. July 12, 2019) ................................................... 11
`
`Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. C15-1483JLR, 2018 WL 3328418 (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2018) .................................... 13
`
`Noble v. Dorcy Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-08646-ODW-JPRX, 2020 WL 4227295 (C.D. Cal. July 23,
`2020) ....................................................................................................................................... 24
`
`Okocha v. City of N.Y.,
`122 A.D.3d 550, 998 N.Y.S.2d 21 (1st Dep’t 2014) .............................................................. 23
`
`Oncale v. Sundower Offshore Servs., Inc.,
`523 U.S. 75 (1998) .................................................................................................................. 14
`
`Pedroza v. Ralph Lauren Corp.,
`19-cv-08639, 2020 WL 4273988 (S.D.N.Y. July 24, 2020) ............................................. 11, 21
`
`Puffer v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
`255 F.R.D. 450, 471 (N.D. Ill. 2009) ...................................................................................... 17
`
`Ramirez v. Baxter Credit Union,
`No. 16-cv-03765-SI, 2017 WL 1064991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017) ...................................... 25
`
`Resendiz v. Exxon Mobil Corp.,
`No. 5:20-CV-00692-M, 2021 WL 4444718 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2021) ................................. 22
`
`Rhodes v. Adams & Assocs., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00494-TLN-KJN, 2018 WL 3913806 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 2018) .................... 24
`
`Roberts v. Juliano,
`No. 9:18-CV-1434, 2020 WL 4739619 (N.D.N.Y. July 20, 2020) ........................................ 21
`
`Russo v. City of New York,
`No. 02 CIV. 369 (TPG), 2003 WL 1571707 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2003) ................................ 22
`
`Sanders v. Apple, Inc.,
`672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) .................................................................................... 11
`
`Sandoval v. Ali,
`34 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2014) .............................................................................. 11, 19
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- iv -
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 7 of 32
`
`
`Scalercio-Isenberg v. Morgan Stanley Servs. Grp. Inc.,
`No. 19-CV-6034 (JPO), 2019 WL 6916099 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2019) ........................... 20, 23
`
`Somers v. Apple, Inc.,
`729 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................................... 19
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co.,
`327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ................................................................................................... 12
`
`Stubbs v. McDonald’s Corp.,
`224 F.R.D. 668 (D. Kan. 2004) ............................................................................................... 18
`
`Wagner v. Taylor,
`836 F.2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes,
`564 U.S. 338 (2011) .......................................................................................................... 14, 15
`
`Statutes
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1981 ..................................................................................................................... 18, 25
`
`ADEA ............................................................................................................................................ 22
`
`NYCHRL ............................................................................................................................... passim
`
`NYSHRL ................................................................................................................................ passim
`
`Title VII .................................................................................................................................. passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`12(b)(1) ........................................................................................................................... 1, 3, 11
`12(b)(6) ................................................................................................................................. 1, 3
`12(f) ........................................................................................................................... 1, 3, 10, 16
`23 ...................................................................................................................................... passim
`23(a) ........................................................................................................................................ 15
`23(b)(3) ................................................................................................................................... 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- v -
`
`DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF MOTION AND
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 8 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION, PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS, AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on November 22, 2022, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1, on
`
`the Fourth Floor of the above-titled Court, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland, California,
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) will move the Court for an Order: (1) dismissing or striking
`under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(f) Plaintiffs’ employee and hiring class claims for failure to adequately
`plead the classes can satisfy Rule 23’s procedural requirements; (2) dismissing Plaintiff Curley’s
`individual New York State and City claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and
`failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1); (3) dismissing Plaintiff Aweh’s
`individual California and New York State and City failure-to-hire claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for
`failure to state a claim; (4) dismissing Plaintiff Curley’s and Plaintiff Aweh’s state law claims
`asserted on behalf of a putative class under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of an adequate class
`representative with viable claims; (5) striking all class definitions as temporally overbroad pursuant
`to Rule 12(f); and (6) striking the “hiring class” definitions under Rule 12(f) as inconsistent with
`the pleadings. This Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion, the accompanying Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities, Google’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) of Plaintiffs’
`administrative charges, the complete pleadings and records on file herein, and such other evidence
`and arguments as may be presented at the hearing.
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) as pled shows exactly why this case is not
`appropriate for class treatment. Four employees attempt to extrapolate their individual allegations
`of race discrimination and hostile work environment to thousands of current and former Black and
`African American1 employees in hundreds of different jobs, working in dozens of locations across
`the country, and reporting to thousands of different managers across all lines of business.
`Furthermore, Plaintiffs challenge every possible employment action, from initial job placement to
`
`I.
`
`
`1
`Throughout this Motion, Google adopts Plaintiffs’ convention of using the term “Black” to
`refer to Black and African American individuals.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 9 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`termination, and everything in between. Given the breadth of these claims and the scope of
`individuals the Plaintiffs seek to represent, the allegations in the SAC do not plausibly allege how
`this case can proceed as a class action.
`Plaintiffs have already amended their pleadings twice. These amendments show, however,
`that Plaintiffs are struggling to plead facts to support a common contention, the determination of
`which will resolve all of the various claims asserted in one stroke. The proposed nationwide
`employee class is facially overbroad because, among other things, Plaintiffs’ own allegations
`demonstrate that the class includes the very individuals accused of discrimination and harassment.
`Further, Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled the prerequisites of a viable Rule 23 class action. Fact-
`intensive, individualized questions will predominate given the sheer breadth of the putative class
`and the claims at issue. There is no glue that binds putative class members together other than their
`race and their employment with Google, and no amount of discovery will cure this defect.
`The proposed New York and California employee classes, though more limited in
`geographical scope, present the same issues that render this case inappropriate for class treatment.
`Additionally, Plaintiff Curley cannot serve as a representative for any New York employee in that
`proposed class. It is clear from the SAC and her administrative charge that her claims are either
`time-barred, lack the requisite factual nexus to New York to establish subject matter jurisdiction,
`or fail to plausibly suggest she is entitled to relief.
`In addition, two applicants bring class claims on behalf of all Black candidates denied full-
`time employment. Plaintiffs allege Google denies employment to “qualified” applicants, but the
`proposed class is overbroad as to include applicants who do not meet the minimum qualifications
`for the positions sought and, as such, are precluded from candidacy at the outset. Plaintiffs ask this
`Court to authorize discovery into millions of applications and hiring decisions on the theory that
`any Black individual who ever applied to work at Google is per se a victim of race discrimination.
`Furthermore, while the SAC broadly challenges every conceivable step in the hiring process for all
`positions at Google, the SAC’s only particularized allegations of discrimination in hiring are
`confined to conduct that occurs once a candidate reaches the interview phase. Plaintiffs’ decision
`to call this a “hiring” (as opposed to “applicant”) class further underscores the point.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 10 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`Finally, Plaintiff Aweh, a Georgia resident, seeks to represent thousands, potentially
`millions, of New York- and California-based applicants, but has not plausibly alleged her own
`individual claims. She has not pled any facts suggesting the unspecified roles “based in” New York
`or California were filled, that any non-class members were treated more favorably, or any facts at
`all to suggest that race played a role in her failure to secure interviews. She cannot represent a class
`if she lacks viable individual claims, nor can she represent California applicants for the separate
`and independent reason that she is neither a California resident nor does she allege that any
`discriminatory conduct occurred in the state.
`Plaintiffs’ SAC has not articulated what common harm all class members suffered or a
`theory susceptible to common proof. Allowing these class claims to proceed would lead to
`overbroad and invasive discovery into the personal, private information relating to millions of
`individuals across the country from the outset. This is precisely the type of pleading deficiency the
`U.S. Supreme Court rejected in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), Ashcroft v.
`Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), and their progeny. Accordingly, Google requests that the Court dismiss,
`or in the alternative, strike the employee and hiring class allegations, dismiss Plaintiff Curley’s and
`Plaintiff Aweh’s individual and class claims asserted under state law, and strike the class definitions
`as temporally overbroad or inconsistent with the pleadings.
`II.
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`The issues to be decided are whether: (1) this Court should dismiss per Rule 12(b)(6) or
`strike per Rule 12(f) Plaintiffs’ putative employee and hiring class claims because the classes are
`facially overbroad and the SAC does not plausibly allege Plaintiffs can satisfy Rule 23’s procedural
`requirements; (2) this Court should dismiss Plaintiff Curley’s individual New York State and City
`claims for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and lack of subject matter jurisdiction under
`Rule 12(b)(1) for failure to plead the requisite factual nexus to New York; (3) this Court should
`dismiss Plaintiff Aweh’s individual New York State and City and California claims for failure to
`state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6); (4) this Court should dismiss per Rule 12(b)(6) Plaintiff Curley’s
`and Plaintiff Aweh’s New York State and City and California class claims because both Plaintiffs’
`claims fail as a matter of law and they therefore cannot assert such claims on behalf of a putative
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 11 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`class; and (5) this Court should strike the class definitions as temporally overbroad because they
`necessarily include individuals with time-barred claims or arez inconsistent with the pleadings.
`III. RELEVANT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS2
`A.
`Google Hired Plaintiffs in Different Offices to Perform Different Roles.
`Google recruited and hired Plaintiffs April Curley, Desiree Mayon, Ronika Lewis, and
`Rayna Reid at different times, in different offices, and to perform different jobs. Google hired
`Plaintiff Curley in 2014 as a University Programs Specialist, a level 3 role.3 (SAC ¶¶ 38–39.) She
`worked in New York until transferring to Washington, D.C. in December 2018. (Id. ¶ 38.) Plaintiff
`Mayon was hired in 2019 as a level 4 Technical Program Manager, but does not describe the nature
`of this work, what department she was in, or even where she worked. (Id. ¶¶ 53–54.) Plaintiff Reid
`was hired in 2018 as a level 3 Staffing Channels Specialist in Austin, Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 81–82.) Plaintiff
`Lewis was hired in 2020 as “Google’s Head of Logistics Operations Strategy and Analytics” in
`California, a level 7 position. (Id. ¶ 70.) She has held various roles at Google, including Senior
`Program Manager, a “new regulatory compliance role,” and a fourth unspecified position. (Id. ¶¶
`70, 73, 75.)
`B.
`Plaintiffs Vaguely Allege “Underleveling” and Discrimination in Pay.
`Plaintiffs Curley, Mayon, and Reid claim they were “under-leveled” upon hire because of
`race. (SAC ¶¶ 39, 54, 83.) Plaintiff Lewis does not challenge her initial assignment to a more senior
`level 7 position. Instead, she challenges her reassignment to a level 6 role after Google “eliminated
`the position” she was hired to perform, and later to a level 5 role “in order to transfer,” claiming
`that race played a factor. (Id. ¶¶ 70, 73.) Each Plaintiff alleges Google “refused to place [her] at the
`higher level warranted by her experience” or that “she deserved” throughout her tenure. (Id. ¶¶ 39,
`54, 70, 83.) Only Plaintiff Reid, however, identifies anyone at Google who was allegedly assigned
`a higher level to perform similar work, regardless of race. (Id. ¶ 83.)
`
`2
`These facts are based on allegations in the SAC and the administrative charges attached to
`the accompanying Request for Judicial Notice filed herewith. Google generally denies the
`allegations, and reserves all rights to contest the facts alleged in the SAC and the charges.
`3
`The SAC states broadly that Google assigns each role a “level” of seniority. (SAC ¶ 24.)
`No Plaintiff ever held a level 2 role, yet the SAC alleges that level 2 is “the lowest level Google
`assigns to permanent, full-time employees, typically reserved for hires straight out of college.” (Id.)
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`- 4 -
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 12 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`Plaintiffs also allege “[e]ach level is to correspond to a standardized base salary and
`compensation range, among other things.” (Id. ¶ 24.) Only Plaintiff Lewis alleges others in “her
`current role” were offered higher compensation packages to perform similar work, though she does
`not specify their race. (Id. ¶ 75.)
`C.
`Plaintiffs Allege No Common Practice With Regard to Promotions.
`Each Plaintiff alleges she was denied “advancement opportunities,” but the SAC does not
`identify a specific common practice or policy other than “denying or delaying advancement
`opportunities to Black employees.” (Id. ¶¶ 33(d), 46, 54, 70, 83.) Plaintiff Curley alleges that one
`of her managers “put [her] up for a level increase,” which a “high-level white manager” denied.
`(Id. ¶¶ 45–46.) Plaintiff Lewis alleges she requested and was denied several promotions, that one
`manager told her to “take that promotion request down,” and several others “promised to correct
`her level and increase her pay” but never did. (Id. ¶¶ 72–75.) She also purportedly was told she
`must wait two to three years for a promotion in one of her various roles. (Id. ¶ 75.) Neither Plaintiff
`Mayon nor Plaintiff Reid allege they sought and were denied a promotion.
`D.
`Plaintiffs’ Managers Assessed Their Performance in Different Ways.
`Plaintiffs Curley’s, Mayon’s, and Reid’s managers all purportedly placed them on
`performance improvement plans for various reasons, including alleged retaliation: Plaintiff Curley
`because of her “leadership role in [an] advocacy group” for “people of color at Google”; Plaintiff
`Mayon “for not being ‘Googly’ enough and because she ‘pissed off [a level 7 manager]’”; and
`Plaintiff Reid for “complaining multiple times.” (SAC ¶¶ 49–50, 64, 87.) Plaintiff Mayon also
`allegedly received a retaliatory “Needs Improvement” performance rating. (Id. ¶ 62.) Plaintiff
`Lewis, however, received positive performance reviews, earning at least one exceeds expectations
`performance rating and “multiple awards for her performance, including a Google Citizenship
`Award, an award rarely, if ever, given to new hires at Google.” (Id. ¶¶ 71–72.)
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiffs Allege That Their Individual Managers and Colleagues Subjected
`Them to Harassment and Retaliation.
`
`Plaintiffs allege that they suffered a discriminatory and hostile work environment in their
`respective offices. Plaintiff Curley alleges she was “marginalize[d]” by “a revolving door of
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`DEF.’S NOTICE OF MOT., PARTIAL MOT.
`TO DISMISS & MOT. TO STRIKE
`4:22-CV-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 44 Filed 10/14/22 Page 13 of 32
`
`
`
`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
`
`managers” who “harbored animus toward Black employees and especially Black women.” (SAC
`¶ 43.)4 According to Plaintiff Curley, one of her unnamed managers is a putative class member.
`(Id. ¶ 45.) Plaintiff Mayon alleges that colleagues, managers, a “Chief of Staff,” and other unnamed
`Google employees “regularly screamed at and berated her,” made racist and demeaning remarks,
`and that one manager “used his body to push Mayon back down into her chair.” (SAC ¶¶ 56, 64.)
`Though she does not provide the race of these individuals in the SAC, her charge confirms that she
`is accusing two putative class members of harassing and discriminatory conduct. (RJN Exh. B at
`pp. 1, 3.)
`Plaintiff Lewis alleges that “a racially hostile colleague” stole her phone; that unspecified
`employees subjected her to racist remarks; and that her “superiors and peers” marginalized and
`excluded her when they “worked collaboratively in secret [without her],” “placed [her] on teams
`that were understaffed,” and gave her “work assignments [that were] constantly changing.” (SAC
`¶¶ 76–77.) Plaintiff Reid claims her managers “subjected [her] to racial stereotypes as a Black
`woman” by “accus[ing] her of not liking working in Austin,” critiquing her for “not being ‘Googly’
`enough and ‘not smiling enough,’” and posting racist imagery to social media. (Id. ¶¶ 84–85.) She
`also alleges that unnamed colleagues and “a manager” made racist remarks, denied her time off,
`and mistook her for a cafeteria worker. (Id. ¶ 86.)
`Each Plaintiff allegedly reported incidents of harassment or discrimination to Human
`Resources, “to no avail.” (Id. ¶¶ 44, 48, 57, 61, 78, 85.) The SAC alleges, “Google’s human
`resources department and legal department” are “[c]omplicit in Google’s pattern or practice of race
`discrimina