Gary Levy v. Google LLC

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Washington grants Google LLC’s motion for summary judgment in Gary Levy’s employment-related action and denies as moot Google’s motion to continue the trial date. The court concludes that Levy’s claim under Washington’s Silenced No More Act is not cognizable because his reported financial fraud did not concern conduct enumerated in the statute. The court also finds insufficient evidence of pretext for Levy’s wrongful-termination claim and insufficient evidence that Google interfered with or retaliated against him for exercising rights under Washington’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Act.

Holdings

1. Washington's Silenced No More Act protects disclosures or discussions concerning the unlawful conduct expressly enumerated in the statute—illegal harassment, illegal discrimination, illegal retaliation, wage-and-hour violations, or sexual assault—but does not generally protect reports of financial fraud merely because the fraud allegedly violates public policy. Levy's financial-fraud report therefore was not protected conduct under the Act.
2. Levy established enough evidence for a prima facie showing that his public-policy-linked financial-fraud report was a significant factor in the termination, but he failed to produce specific and substantial evidence that Google's legitimate reduction-in-force explanation was pretextual or that his report nevertheless substantially motivated the termination. Summary judgment for Google was therefore proper.
3. A WPFMLA interference claim requires evidence that the employer's adverse action was related to the employee's exercise or attempted exercise of WPFMLA rights. Levy's evidence that Google notified him of his termination while he was on leave, without more, did not establish that required relationship or create a genuine dispute of material fact.
4. Levy failed to provide facts showing that Google terminated him for opposing a practice made unlawful by the WPFMLA or for participating in proceedings governed by that statute. He also failed to show that Google's reduction-in-force explanation was pretextual, so summary judgment was proper on the WPFMLA retaliation claim.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Levy's report of financial fraud constituted protected conduct under Washington's Silenced No More Act.
2. Whether Levy presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute that his report of financial violations was a significant factor in his termination and that Google's reduction-in-force explanation was pretextual.
3. Whether Levy presented evidence that Google's termination decision was related to his exercise or attempted exercise of rights under the Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave Act.
4. Whether Levy presented evidence supporting retaliation or discrimination under the Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave Act.

Disposition

dismissed