Google sued for gender bias as court blocks key deposition

Meier sued Google and Martinez under federal and New York anti-discrimination laws, and the case is currently in its fact-gathering phase – with depositions underway and discovery set to close on March 4, 2026.

The dispute that landed before the court last month centered on one name: Sean Downey, Google’s President for Americas and Global Partners. Meier wanted to put Downey under oath, arguing that the executive sat at the very center of his discrimination claims. He pointed to two emails he had received from Downey — one from January 2020, in which Downey assigned him a key workstream, and another from November 2022, which Meier characterized as reflecting a statistical disparity in the company’s hiring decisions. On that basis, Meier argued Downey could shed light on how promotion and termination decisions were made at the leadership level.

The court was unconvinced. On February 20, Judge Engelmayer found that Meier had not demonstrated that Downey had any meaningful personal knowledge of the events at the heart of the case. Receiving a work assignment from a senior executive four years before a termination, the court noted, does not establish that the executive played any role in that termination. The same applied to the 2022 email, which the court read as little more than a routine announcement of an already-decided set of promotions.

More pointedly, the court observed that Meier had already noticed depositions of six other Google officials and employees – including several who supervised him directly. Given those options, there was no compelling reason to pull a senior executive into the deposition room based on limited and inconclusive connections to the case.

The ruling reflects a well-established legal principle that sits at the intersection of corporate structure and employment litigation: senior executives are not automatically fair game for depositions simply because of their rank. A plaintiff must show that the executive had real, hands-on involvement in the decisions being challenged – not just that they appeared on the same emails or held authority over a broad department. Being on the same email chain, the court made clear, does not get you there.