Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 33
`
`
`
`Ben Crump (pro hac vice)
`Nabeha Shaer (pro hac vice)
`BEN CRUMP LAW, PLLC
`122 S. Calhoun St.
`Tallahassee, FL 32301
`Telephone:
`(800) 713-1222
`court@bencrump.com
`
`Linda D. Friedman (pro hac vice)
`Suzanne E. Bish (pro hac vice)
`George Robot (pro hac vice)
`Mark S. Current (pro hac vice)
`STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
`303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
`Chicago, Illinois 60606
`Telephone:
`(312) 431-0888
`sbish@sfltd.com
`
`Sam Sani (SBN 2733993)
`SANI LAW, APC
`15720 Ventura Blvd., Suite 405
`Encino, CA 91436
`Telephone:
`(310) 935-0405
`ssani@sanilawfirm.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`APRIL CURLEY, DESIREE MAYON,
`RONIKA LEWIS, RAYNA REID, ANIM
`AWEH, and EBONY THOMAS, individually
`and behalf of all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`CASE NO: 4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN
`OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT’S
`PARTIAL MOTION TO DISMISS AND
`STRIKE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`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 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 33
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`Introduction .................................................................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`II. Issues to be Decided....................................................................................................2
`
`III. Key Factual Allegations ..............................................................................................2
`
`IV. Legal Standards ...........................................................................................................4
`
`A. Motions to Strike Class Allegations Are Disfavored and Must Be Denied
`Where No Conspicuous Pleading Defect is Apparent From the Face of the
`Pleadings .....................................................................................................................4
`
`B. Rule 12(b) (6) Does Not Permit Dismissal of Class Allegations ...............................5
`
`C. Rule 8 Provides for “Liberal Treatment” of a Complaint at the Pleading Stage .......6
`
`D. The Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over New York Claims of Plaintiffs
`and Class Members Who Worked for or Applied to Google in New York ................6
`
`V. Google Has Failed To And Cannot Identify Any Conspicuous Pleading Defect
`Precluding Certification Of An Employee Class As a Matter Of Law .......................7
`
`A. Google Ignores Plaintiffs’ Disparate Impact Claims, Which Are Proved Through
`Common Statistical and Expert Evidence and Are Thus Routinely Certified ............7
`
`B. Plaintiffs’ Proposed Class Definition Provides No Basis for Striking the Class ........8
`
`C. Google Fails to and Cannot Show Any Conspicuous Pleading Defect with
`Respect to Plaintiffs’ Challenges to Google’s Job Leveling, Job Assignment,
`and Performance Review Practices .............................................................................9
`
`D. Google Fails to Show that Plaintiffs’ Claims Are “Mired in Conflict” ...................12
`
`E. Google Fails to Show that Discrimination and Hostile Work Environment
`Claims Are “Inherently Individualized” as a Matter of Law ....................................13
`
`F. Google Fails to Show that Plaintiffs Are Incapable of Demonstrating
`Predominance ............................................................................................................16
`
` 1. Google’s Extensive Reliance on Kevari Is Fundamentally Flawed......................16
`
` 2. Plaintiffs Can Demonstrate Commonality and Predominance .............................17
`
` 3. Predominance Is Not Required for Plaintiffs’ Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule
`
`23(c)(4) Classes ...........................................................................................19
`
`VI. Google Has Failed To Identify Any Conspicuous Pleading Defect
`Precluding Certification of a Hiring Class ................................................................19
`
`VII. Google Has Not Identified Any Basis for Dismissing Plaintiff Curley’s
`New York Claims .....................................................................................................21
`
`1
`1
`
`2
`2
`
`3
`3
`
`4
`4
`
`5
`5
`
`6
`6
`
`7
`7
`
`8
`8
`
`9
`9
`
`10
`10
`
`11
`11
`
`12
`12
`
`13
`13
`
`14
`14
`
`15
`15
`
`16
`16
`
`17
`17
`
`18
`18
`
`19
`19
`
`20
`20
`
`21
`21
`
`22
`22
`
`23
`23
`
`24
`24
`
`25
`25
`
`26
`26
`
`27
`27
`
`28
`28
`
`- i -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 3 of 33
`
`VIII. Aweh States Individual and Class Hiring Claims Based on Google’s
`Rejecting Her Applications in New York and California .........................................23
`
`IX. The Court Should Not Alter the Class’s Temporal Scope ........................................24
`
`X. To the Extent the Court Grants the Motion in Any Part, Plaintiffs Should be
`Allowed Leave to Amend .........................................................................................25
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 4 of 33
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Page(s)
`
`Ali v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 18-CV-04086, 2018 WL 11467270 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2018) .... 30
`
`Amchem Prod., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (1997).................................................................. 24
`
`Anderson v. HotelsAB, LLC, No. 15-cv-712, 2015 WL 5008771 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2015) ...... 30
`
`Asarco, LLC v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 765 F.3d 999 (9th Cir. 2014) ............................................ 27
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ........................................................................................... 7
`
`Austin v. Univ. of Oregon, 925 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2019) ....................................................... 8, 29
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ........................................................................... 7
`
`Bennett v. Nucor Corp., 656 F.3d 802 (8th Cir. 2011) ................................................................. 18
`
`Brand v. Comcast Corp., 302 F.R.D. 201 (N.D. Ill. 2014) ........................................................... 19
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017) ................................. 2, 11, 14, 26
`
`Brown v. Nucor Corp., 785 F.3d 895 (4th Cir. 2015) ....................................................... 14, 18, 19
`
`Buchanan v. Tata Consultancy Servs., Ltd., No. 15-cv-01696, 2018 WL 3537083 (N.D. Cal. July
`
`23, 2018) ................................................................................................................................... 19
`
`Cahill v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-1477, 2019 WL 2179575 (D. Or. Feb. 26, 2019) ............. 5, 7, 14
`
`Chau v. Donovan, 357 F. Supp. 3d 276 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) .............................................................. 9
`
`Chin v. CH2M Hill Cos., No. 12-cv-4010, 2012 WL 4473293 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 28, 2012)............. 8
`
`Clerkin v. MyLife.com, No. 11-cv-527, 2011 WL 3809912 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011) ................ 7
`
`Collins v. Gamestop Corp., No. 10-cv-1210, 2010 WL 3077671 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010) ......... 6
`
`Cruz v. SEIU Loc. 32BJ, No. 19-cv-11836, 2021 WL 3604661 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2021) ........ 29
`
`Ellis v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 3:04-cv-3341 (N.D. Cal. 2012) ............................. 11, 14, 24
`
`Ellis v. Google, LLC, No. CGC-17-561299 (Cal. Sup. Ct)........................................... 2, 11, 12, 20
`
`Enoh v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., No. 17-cv-04212, 2018 WL 3377547 (N.D. Cal. July 11,
`
`2018) ......................................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Fairley v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 20-cv-02273, 2021 WL 3054804 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2021)6, 23
`
`Friends of Yosemite Valley v. Kempthorne, 520 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2008) ................................. 10
`
`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 -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 5 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`German v. Mercedes-Benz, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-09587, 2022 WL 1407944 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 14,
`
`2022) ......................................................................................................................................... 28
`
`Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424 (1971) ......................................................................... 10
`
`Haggan v. Google, LLC, No. 518739/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.)............................................... 2, 11, 20
`
`Harris v. City of Chicago, 1998 WL 59873 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 9, 1998) ........................................... 22
`
`Hazelwood Sch. Dist. v. United States, 433 U.S. 299 (1977) ....................................................... 13
`
`Henderson v. Physician Affiliate Grp. of New York P.C., No. 18-cv-3430, 2019 WL 3778504
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 12, 2019) ..................................................................................................... 5, 29
`
`Hill v. City of New York, 136 F. Supp. 3d 304 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) .............................................. 8, 20
`
`Hoffman v. Parade Publ’ns, 15 N.Y.3d 285 (N.Y. 2010) .............................................................. 9
`
`Huddleston v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, No. 16-cv-01998-YGR, 2016 WL 4729175 (N.D.
`
`Cal. Sept. 12, 2016)..................................................................................................................... 8
`
`Hughes v. WinCo Foods, No. 11-cv-0644, 2012 WL 34483 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2012) ................. 17
`
`Husser v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 137 F. Supp. 3d 253 (E.D.N.Y. 2015) ..................................... 28
`
`In re Johnson, 760 F.3d 66 (D.C. Cir. 2014) ................................................................................ 20
`
`Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) ..................................................... 14
`
`Jimenez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 765 F.3d 1161 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 26
`
`Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007) .............................................................................................. 28
`
`Kevari v. Scottrade, Inc., No. 18-cv-0819, 2018 WL 6136822 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 31, 2018) ... 20, 21
`
`King v. UA Local 91, 2020 WL 4003019 (N.D. Ala. July 15, 2020) ........................................... 22
`
`Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) ............................................................. 16
`
`Maduka v. Sunrise Hospitals, 375 F.3d 909 (9th Cir. 2004) .......................................................... 8
`
`McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012)........................................ 6, 10, 20, 24
`
`Meyer v. Nat’l Tenant Network, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 1096 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ...................... 5, 7, 22
`
`Morgan v. United States Soccer Fed’n, Inc., No. 19-cv-01717, 2019 WL 7166978 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Nov. 8, 2019) ............................................................................................................................ 19
`
`Moussouris v. Microsoft Corp., No. 15-cv-1483, 2018 WL 3328418 (W.D. Wash. June 25, 2018)
`
`............................................................................................................................................. 17, 26
`
`- iv -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`Obrey v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 691, 694 (9th Cir. 2005) .................................................................. 13
`
`Pan v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 16-cv-01885, 2017 WL 3252212 (S.D. Cal. July 31, 2017) ............ 19
`
`Pena v. Taylor, 305 F.R.D. 197 (E.D. Cal. 2015)......................................................................... 17
`
`Pouncy v. Danka Office Imaging, 2009 WL 10695792 (S.D.N.Y. May 18, 2009) ........................ 9
`
`Ramirez v. Baxter Credit Union, No. 16-cv-03765, 2017 WL 1064991 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017)
`
`................................................................................................................................................... 31
`
`Rees v. PNC Bank, N.A., 308 F.R.D. 266 (N.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................... 27
`
`Regan v. Benchmark Co. LLC, 2012 WL 692056 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 1, 2012) .................................. 9
`
`Roger-Vasselin v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., No. 04-cv-4027, 2006 WL 2038291 (N.D. Cal. July 19,
`
`2006) ......................................................................................................................................... 29
`
`Sanders v. Apple, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978 (N.D. Cal. 2009) ....................................................... 6
`
`Sandoval v. Ali, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1031 (N.D. Cal. 2014) ............................................................ 6, 20
`
`Sandoval v. M1 Auto Collisions Ctrs., 309 F.R.D. 549 (N.D. Cal. 2015) .................................... 20
`
`Scalercio-Isenberg v. Morgan Stanley Servs. Grp. Inc., No. 19-CV-6034, 2019 WL 6916099
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2019).......................................................................................................... 30
`
`Sherrard v. Boeing Co., No. 4:13-cv-1015, 2013 WL 5786642 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 28, 2013) ........... 6
`
`Staton v. Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938 (9th Cir. 2003) ............................................................... 16, 17
`
`Stockwell v. San Francisco, 749 F.3d 1107 (9th Cir. 2014) ......................................................... 22
`
`Sulzberg v. Happiest Minds Techs. PVT. Ltd., No. 19-cv-05618, 2019 WL 6493984 (N.D. Cal.
`
`Dec. 3, 2019) ..................................................................................................................... 5, 7, 22
`
`Swierkiewicz v. Sorema, 534 U.S. 506 (2002) .................................................................... 8, 28, 29
`
`Taylor v. City of New York, 207 F. Supp. 3d 293 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) ........................................ 17, 31
`
`Valentino v. Carter-Wallace, Inc., 97 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 1996) ................................................. 24
`
`Wagner v. Taylor, 836 F.2d 578 (D.C. Cir. 1987) ........................................................................ 17
`
`Watson v. Fort Worth Bank & Trust, 487 U.S. 977 (1988) .......................................................... 10
`
`Yoshikawa v. Seguirant, 41 F.4th 1109 (9th Cir. 2022) ...................................................... 8, 28, 29
`
`Zollicoffer v. Gold Standard Baking, Inc., 335 F.R.D. 126 (N.D. Ill. 2020) ................................ 20
`
`
`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
`
`- v -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 7 of 33
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`42 U.S.C. § 1981…………………………………………………………………………...passim
`
`New York State Human Rights Law (“NYSHRL”)……………………………………17, 23, 25
`
`New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”)…………………………………….17, 23, 25
`
`California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”)……………………………...17, 24, 25
`
`Title VII…………………………………………………………………………………….passim
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(6).……………………………………………………………………………passim
`
`12(f)………………………………………………………………………………...passim
`
`23(a)…………………………………………………………………………….13, 14, 18
`
`23(b)(3)…………………………………………………………………………… 19, 20
`
`23(c)(4)…………………………………………………………………………………20
`
`Cal. Code Regs. tit. 2, § 11008…………………………………………………………………24
`
`Newberg on Class Actions……………………………………………………………………...13
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`- vi -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Google, one of the nation’s largest and most recognizable
`
`corporations, maintains uniform employment policies and practices that have an unlawful
`
`disparate impact and constitute a pattern or practice of intentional race discrimination against
`
`Black employees and applicants, diminishing their pay and opportunities. This lawsuit seeks
`
`justice for class members, including injunctive relief and reform to create a level playing field.
`
`Facing extremely serious allegations that it systematically denied African Americans
`
`jobs, pay, and advancement, Google asks this Court to determine as a matter of law, at the
`
`pleading stage, that no class can ever be certified and that Google cannot be held accountable for
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`systemic discrimination and an unflinchingly hostile work environment. Despite the breathtaking
`
`11
`
`scope of the relief it seeks, Google’s Motion is remarkably thin. Google ignores the extremely
`
`12
`
`high burden for motions to strike class allegations and this Court’s guidance discouraging these
`
`13
`
`motions, where “[d]efendants essentially seek to litigate Rule 23 class certification prematurely.”
`
`14
`
`E.g., Slovin v. SunRun, Inc., No. 15-cv-05340, 2016 WL 5930631, at *1-2 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12,
`
`15
`
`2016) (Rogers, J); Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Servs., 132 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1192-93 (N.D. Cal.
`
`16
`
`2015) (Rogers, J); Simpson v. Vantage Hosp. Grp., No. 12-cv-04814, 2012 WL 6025772, at *4, 7
`
`17
`
`(N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012) (Rogers, J). Google refuses to acknowledge the well-developed and
`
`18
`
`decisive Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit class certification case-law post-dating Dukes. See,
`
`19
`
`e.g., Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016); Olean Wholesale Grocery Coop.,
`
`20
`
`Inc. v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, 31 F.4th 651, (9th Cir. 2022) (en banc) [hereinafter Olean];
`
`21
`
`Briseno v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 844 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2017); Ruiz Torres v. Mercer Canyons
`
`22
`
`Inc., 835 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2016). And Google asks this Court to improperly consider materials
`
`23
`
`outside of the well-pleaded complaint1 and prematurely issue rulings about ways that Google
`
`24
`
`might one day defend its discriminatory nationwide policies and practices.
`
`25
`
`The inappropriateness of Google’s request for a premature declaration of victory on
`
`26
`
`Plaintiffs’ class claims is aptly illustrated by two strikingly similar cases against Google where
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs separately filed a response in opposition to Google’s request for judicial notice. (Dkt.
`54)
`
`- 1 -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 9 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`class certification was granted: a sex discrimination claim in California and race and sex
`
`discrimination claims in New York, in which Google itself stipulated to class certification.2 The
`
`Court should reject Google’s request to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations in their entirety, across
`
`the board, at the pleading stage. Instead, this case should proceed to discovery, so that Plaintiffs’
`
`class can gather and present evidence to allow this Court to perform the “rigorous analysis”
`
`required to decide class certification on a full record. See, e.g., Slovin, 2016 WL 5930631, at *3.
`
`II.
`
`Issues To Be Decided
`
`The issues are whether: (1) this Court should, before discovery, strike in their entirety
`
`Plaintiffs’ class allegations challenging company-wide discriminatory practices as “redundant,
`
`10
`
`immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous” under Rule 12(f); (2) whether this Court should
`
`11
`
`“dismiss” Plaintiffs’ class claims under Rule 12(b)(6), even though there is no legal basis for
`
`12
`
`“dismissing” class allegations under that rule; (3) dismiss Plaintiff Curley’s New York claims,
`
`13
`
`when Curley worked for Google in New York, was subjected to Google’s discriminatory
`
`14
`
`practices in New York, and Google admits the limitations period for her New York claims was
`
`15
`
`tolled by agreement; (4) dismiss Aweh’s individual and class New York and California claims
`
`16
`
`even though she applied for and was rejected by Google for jobs in New York and California for
`
`17
`
`which she was well qualified, pursuant to Google’s uniformly discriminatory hiring practices.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`III. Key Factual Allegations
`
`Plaintiffs allege that Google is engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination
`
`20
`
`through a uniform set of company-wide policies and practices that also have a disparate impact
`
`21
`
`on African Americans. (¶ 2) Google maintains a strong, racially biased corporate culture, which
`
`22
`
`infects its policies and personnel decisions, and is replete with harmful racial stereotypes about
`
`23
`
`African Americans. (¶¶ 2, 18–20) Pursuant to company-wide discriminatory policies and
`
`24
`
`practices centrally issued from its corporate headquarters, Google refuses to hire extraordinarily
`
`25
`
`qualified Black applicants, systematically assigns Black professionals to lower-level roles, pays
`
`26
`
`them less, unfairly rates their performance, and denies them advancement and leadership roles
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`2 Haggan v. Google, LLC, No. 518739/2022 (N.Y. Sup. Ct); Ellis v. Google, LLC, No. CGC-17-
`561299 (Cal. Sup. Ct).
`
`- 2 -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 10 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`because of their race. (¶¶ 19, 23–30) As a result, Black employees at Google earn less and suffer
`
`higher rates of attrition. (¶¶ 2, 27, 30)
`
`Google’s anemic Black representation (¶ 20) is the result of uniform, company-wide
`
`discriminatory hiring practices for the recruitment, screening, interviewing, evaluation, and
`
`selection of candidates. (¶ 20) Google’s hiring process disproportionately screens out and assigns
`
`lower scores to well-qualified Black applicants and relies on factors and processes that harm
`
`Black applicants and hold them to differential and higher standards than non-Black applicants,
`
`including racially biased “culture-fit” interviews. (¶¶ 5, 20-21, 93–94, 99–100, 102)
`
`Google subjects the relatively few Black employees it does hire to uniform,
`
`10
`
`discriminatory pay, level and job assignment, performance assessment, and promotion policies
`
`11
`
`and practices that systematically underpay them and diminish, delay, and deny advancement.
`
`12
`
`(¶¶ 23, 25-30) Google assigns “levels” to all jobs company-wide, and it considers all employees
`
`13
`
`at the same level—regardless of location in the United States—to perform substantially equal or
`
`14
`
`substantially similar work. (¶ 24) Google assigns Black employees to lower levels and jobs with
`
`15
`
`lower pay and less advancement opportunities than their experience and responsibilities warrant.
`
`16
`
`(¶¶ 25, 39, 41, 49, 54, 69-70, 73, 83) Google’s Black employees are subjected to discriminatory
`
`17
`
`compensation practices, including practices regarding salary, bonuses, and stock, and therefore
`
`18
`
`earn less than their similarly situated non-Black peers. (¶¶ 25-27)
`
`19
`
`As Google’s own internal reports analyzing racial disparities in performance ratings
`
`20
`
`reveal, Google maintains discriminatory performance review and promotion practices. (¶ 23, 28–
`
`21
`
`29) As a result, Black employees are denied promotions and rated lower than their performance
`
`22
`
`warrants, meaning less compensation (in the form of raises, bonuses, and stock options) and
`
`23
`
`disqualification from further advancement. (¶¶ 28–29, 45–47, 55, 62, 64, 72–75, 83, 87)
`
`24
`
`25
`
`Finally, consistent with Google’s racially biased corporate culture and pattern of
`
`discrimination, Google maintains a racially hostile work environment across its workplaces. (¶¶
`
`26
`
`2–3, 22) Black Googlers are overpoliced and interrogated at Google campuses, and the frequent
`
`27
`
`target of racist comments, posts, and conduct. (¶¶ 22, 43, 56, 76, 86) Google’s racially hostile
`
`28
`
`workplace is so pervasive and notorious that employees of color shared an intranet document
`
`- 3 -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 11 of 33
`
`
`
`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
`
`with thousands of examples of racial harassment and microaggressions they face. (¶ 22) Google
`
`reinforces this hostile work environment by defending and failing to hold harassers accountable
`
`and permitting retaliation against Black employees who lodge complaints. (¶ 31, 32)
`
`IV. Legal Standards
`
`A. Motions to Strike Class Allegations Are Disfavored and Must Be Denied Where
`No Conspicuous Pleading Defect is Apparent From the Face of the Pleadings
`
`Google glosses over the legal standards that govern the primary relief it is seeking—
`
`striking or “dismissing” Plaintiffs’ class allegations in their entirety before discovery under Rule
`
`12(f)—because those standards doom its Motion. Motions to strike are “disfavored” and are
`
`routinely and correctly denied where, as here, “[d]efendants essentially seek to litigate Rule 23
`
`class certification prematurely.” Slovin, 2016 WL 5930631, at *2; accord, e.g., Heldt v. Tata
`
`Consultancy Servs., 132 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 1192-93 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (Rogers, J); Simpson v.
`
`Vantage Hosp. Grp., No. 12-cv-04814, 2012 WL 6025772, at *4, 7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2012)
`
`(Rogers, J); Camacho v. Control Grp. Media Co., LLC, No. 3:21-cv-1954, 2022 WL 3093306, at
`
`*11 (S.D. Cal. July 18, 2022); Woodburn v. City of Henderson, No. 2:19-cv-01488, 2020 WL
`
`5805503, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 29, 2020); Sulzberg v. Happiest Minds Techs. PVT. Ltd., No. 19-
`
`cv-05618, 2019 WL 6493984, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2019); Cahill v. Nike, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-
`
`1477, 2019 WL 2179575, at *4, 8 (D. Or. Feb. 26, 2019); Rodas v. Monetary Mgmt. of Cal., No.
`
`2:14-cv-01389, 2015 WL 1440602, at *4–5 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2015) (citing 10 more cases);
`
`Meyer v. Nat’l Tenant Network, Inc., 10 F. Supp. 3d 1096, 1103-04 (N.D. Cal. 2014); In re Wal-
`
`Mart, 505 F. Supp. 2d 609, 614-16 (N.D. Cal. 2007); Fairley v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 20-cv-
`
`02273, 2021 WL 3054804, at *4, 12–16 (N.D. Ill. July 20, 2021); Sherrard v. Boeing Co., No.
`
`4:13-cv-1015, 2013 WL 5786642, at *3-4 (E.D. Mo. Oct. 28, 2013).3
`
`
`3 In Sanders v. Apple, Inc., 672 F. Supp. 2d 978, 989–90 (N.D. Cal. 2009) the court struck
`plaintiffs’ fraud and warranty class claims after noting that those claims are particularly
`problematic when pursued on a national basis. This simply is not the case with disparate impact
`and pattern or practice employment discrimination class claims, which are regularly certified.
`See, e.g., McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, 672 F.3d 482, 490–91 (7th Cir. 2012); Ellis v. Costco
`Wholesale Corp., 285 F.R.D. 492, 518 (N.D. Cal. 2012). Sandoval v. Ali, 34 F. Supp. 3d 1031,
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 12 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`Rule 12(f) allows the Court to strike “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous
`
`matter,” circumstances that even Google does not argue apply here. Motions to strike are
`
`“generally disfavored because they are often used as delaying tactics and because of the limited
`
`importance of pleadings in federal practice.” Slovin, 2016 WL 5930631, at *1 (internal quotation
`
`omitted). In evaluating a motion to strike, the Court limits its review solely to the pleadings, id.
`
`at 2 & n.2, and construes them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, Simpson,
`
`2012 WL 6025772, at *4. Motions to strike class allegations are premature before discovery and
`
`class certification briefing, because the Court lacks “the necessary information to rule on the
`
`propriety of the class allegations.” Slovin, 2016 WL 5930631, at *2 (citing In Re Wal-Mart, 505
`
`10
`
`F. Supp. 2d at 615-16). Thus, such motions may be granted only if a “conspicuous pleading
`
`11
`
`defect” exists that is “plain from the face of the pleadings.” Cahill, 2019 WL 2179575, at *5, 8.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`B. Rule 12(b)(6) Does Not Permit Dismissal of Class Allegations
`
`While virtually ignoring the law governing motions to strike, Google’s brief (at 3, 9-10)
`
`14
`
`extensively discusses cases and standards governing motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6),
`
`15
`
`suggesting these as grounds to dismiss Plaintiffs’ class allegations. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556
`
`16
`
`U.S. 662 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). But these standards have no
`
`17
`
`application to Google’s effort to strike Plaintiffs’ class allegations. “Rule 12(b)(6) is not a proper
`
`18
`
`vehicle for dismissing class claims, for several reasons.” Sulzberg, 2019 WL 6493984, at *2;
`
`19
`
`accord Meyer, 10 F. Supp. 3d at 1103-04; Clerkin v. MyLife.com, No. 11-cv-527, 2011 WL
`
`20
`
`3809912, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 29, 2011).4 Google’s desire to avoid class-wide discovery
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`1043 (N.D. Cal. 2014) is also inapposite. There, plaintiffs compensated based on a “piece rate
`system” brought wage claims, but sought to include employees compensated under different
`methods, so the court concluded that “[a]s pled, the class is inconsistent with Plaintiffs’ theory of
`the case,” but still granted plaintiffs leave to amend, and ultimately certified the class. In Collins
`v. Gamestop Corp., No. 10-cv-1210, 2010 WL 3077671, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2010) the court
`struck, without opposition, nationwide class claims brought under California law, because those
`laws do not protect consumers outside the state.
`4 First, Rule 12(b)(6) “permits a party to argue that the opposing party has failed to state a claim
`upon which relief can be granted, and a class action is a procedural device, not a claim for
`relief.” Sulzberg, 2019 WL 6493984, at *2 (cleaned up) (citing Meyer, 10 F. Supp. 3d at 1104).
`Second, other federal rules govern striking impertinent material (Rule 12(f)) and class
`certification (Rule 23). Id. Third, “a different standard of review applies to decisions on class
`certification than orders on motions to dismiss.” Id.
`
`- 5 -
`
`PLS.’ RESP. IN OPP. TO DEF.’S
`MOT. TO DISMISS AND STRIKE
`4:22-cv-01735-YGR
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-01735-YGR Document 55 Filed 01/11/23 Page 13 of 33
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`regarding Plaintiffs’ extremely serious allegations cannot justify ignoring or contorting the
`
`governing civil procedure rules. See Cahill, 2019 WL 2179575, at *8 (rejecting arguments that
`
`“broad and disparate group of proposed plaintiffs” and potential for extensive discovery
`
`warranted striking or dismissing class allegations).
`
`C. Rule 8 Provides for “Liberal Treatment” of a Complaint at the Pleading Stage
`
`Google overstates what a plaintiff must plead to satisfy Rule 8: even after Twombly/Iqbal,
`
`notice pleading is all that is required in federal court, which “provides for liberal treatment of a
`
`plaintiff’s complaint at the pleading stage.” Austin v. Univ. of Oregon, 925 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th
`
`Cir. 2019). Google’s suggestion that employment discrimination cases are subject to heightened
`
`10
`
`pleading standards is foreclosed by binding precedent.5 See Yoshikawa v. Seguirant, 41 F.4th
`
`11
`
`1109, 1119 (9th Cir. 2022) (holding “under a notice pleading system, it is not appropriate to
`
`12
`
`requi