News in Brief October 6 – Google, Odor Eaters, Lyft and More

How’s Your Googleyness? Class Conditionally Certified in Google Age Discrimination Suit

A class of Google job applicants 40 years old and older has been certified in a suit alleging the company discriminates against older individuals who apply for jobs. At issue is the plaintiffs’ apparent lack of “Googleyness”—an actual adjective used in official court records to describe a job candidate’s potential “cultural fit” at Google. The suit was filed in 2015 by an experienced software engineer who applied and was rejected for a job with Google in 2011. “Google has engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of discriminating against individuals who are age 40 and older in hiring, compensation, and other employment decisions,” the suit claims.

Shortly after, another individual joined the suit saying she was not hired by Google despite having years of experience and performing well during phone and in-person interviews. According to the complaint, a Google recruiter even told her that she needed to include graduation dates on her resume “so the interviewers [could] see how old [she was].” The judge overseeing the suit has asked Google to provide a list of software engineers over 40 years old who had been interviewed in person and denied a position.

Class Action Against Blistex: Odor Eaters Insoles Have No Appetite

A class action against Blistex, the makers of Odor Eaters “odor-destroying” shoe insoles, claims the company falsely and deceptively labels the product while overstating its smell-reducing capabilities. Filed in New York, a 34-page complaint outlines claims made by consumers that Odor Eaters insoles actually “have very little capability to reduce existing odor and cannot eliminate all future odor” despite national marketing for the product that promises otherwise. As a result, the suit claims, thousands of consumers have been duped into spending money on products that simply do not work. If certified, the potential class for the suit could include any consumer in the United States who bought Odor Eaters products.

Thanks to Spokeo Decision, Lyft Escapes FCRA Class Action

A Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action filed against Lyft has been dismissed by a California judge who said the plaintiff’s case had no standing in the wake of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins. Summarily, the plaintiff, a driver for Lyft, said that he had to agree to a background check upon employment. According to the suit, Lyft violated the FCRA by failing to “provide clear and unambiguous disclosures in a stand-alone document” to the plaintiff of his right to request a summary of his credit and background report. This nondisclosure and apparent violation of the FCRA, however, was not enough to convince the judge that the case should proceed in part because the plaintiff failed to allege that he sustained any tangible harm.

New Class Action Thrown at NFL, Riddell Over Football Head Injury Risks

More than 50 former players and the families of deceased players have filed a new class action against the National Football League and helmet maker Riddell Inc. claiming the entities collaborated to mislead players and fans about the risks associated with repeated head injuries. Despite their constant presence in the game and overwhelming proof that frequent head trauma leads to serious medical issues, the NFL knew about and purposely hid from players the true risks associated with concussions, according to the suit. “With so much money at stake, the NFL is and always has been eager to avoid negative publicity and protect the product on the field,” court documents say. “At the end of the day, the NFL has not only failed to satisfy its duty to take the reasonable steps necessary to protect players from devastating head injuries, they have done everything in their power to hide the issue and mislead the players concerning the risks associated with concussions.” This new class action comes in the wake of a previous suit that the NFL settled with former players for nearly $1 billion.

Lexus Lawsuit Says Defective Sunroofs Spontaneously Shatter

A putative class action has been filed against Toyota by a driver who claims the sunroof of her Lexus RX 350 suddenly splintered and shattered as she was driving. According to the suit, Toyota, the maker of Lexus vehicles, knew about this defect for more than four years yet did not inform consumers. Supporting the lawsuit’s claim are multiple reports about the same defect submitted to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is currently investigating Ford, Volkswagen and other carmakers for sunroof issues.