{"id":431,"date":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=431"},"modified":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-08T12:00:00","slug":"jurai-google-title-vii-adea-section-1981-exhaustion-discrimination","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=431","title":{"rendered":"Jurai v. Google LLC \u2014 N.D. Cal. dismisses Title VII and ADEA claims for failure to exhaust, narrows \u00a7 1981 claim"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Keng Jurai v. Google LLC, et al.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Northern District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-08<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
3:25-cv-07093<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981; Title VII; ADEA; administrative exhaustion; reasonably related claims; B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department<\/em>; Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media<\/em>; res judicata<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Keng Jurai, a 40-year-old U.S. citizen of Thai origin with an MBA in project management and a Class B commercial driver\u2019s license, applied for driver positions with Google through Storer Transportation Service and for many other Google positions between October 2022 and November 2025 \u2014 Program Manager, Data Center Security Manager, Technical Program Manager, and others \u2014 and was rejected from all of them. He had previously sued Google in 2024 (Case No. 3:24-cv-07984-LB), and the parties settled that case in May 2025. The court had granted Google\u2019s prior motion to dismiss in this follow-on case on res judicata grounds, with leave to supplement based on new discriminatory acts.<\/p>\n

Jurai supplemented with claims for discrimination and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1981 and Title VII, and violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Google moved to dismiss, arguing that pre-settlement allegations were res judicata, that the Title VII and ADEA claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the \u00a7 1981 claims failed to plead intentional discrimination or but-for causation.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler granted the motion. Pre-settlement allegations were barred by res judicata, as Jurai conceded. Title VII and ADEA claims were dismissed with prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies: Jurai had not filed an EEOC charge naming the post-settlement incidents, and they were not \u201creasonably related\u201d to the 2024 EEOC charge under B.K.B. v. Maui Police Department<\/em> because they occurred at least 18 months later, with the EEOC investigation having ended one month after the May 2025 settlement. The continuing-violation doctrine did not apply because Jurai pleaded only isolated incidents, not a pattern, and discrete discriminatory acts are not actionable if time-barred under National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan<\/em> and Cherosky v. Henderson<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The \u00a7 1981 discrimination claim was dismissed with one final opportunity to amend. Under Comcast Corp. v. National Association of African American-Owned Media<\/em>, Jurai needed to plead intentional discrimination and that race was a but-for cause. His allegations that Google rejected him \u201cbut-for his Thai race\u201d and his reliance on Google\u2019s aggregated H-1B hiring statistics did not provide the kind of stark pattern unexplainable on race-neutral grounds that Williams v. McDonough<\/em> requires. Nor did his MBA establish that he was qualified for every one of the 18+ non-driver positions he applied for. He may amend by February 2, 2026 with facts supporting both intentional discrimination and his qualifications. The \u00a7 1981 retaliation claim also failed because temporal proximity, the only causation theory advanced, was too attenuated under Clark County School District v. Breeden<\/em>.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n