appeal. Accordingly, it reviewed Google’s evidentiary objections on the merits.The Court of Appeal further refused to apply the stray remarks doctrine to excludealleged discriminatory statements that Reid’s supervisors and coworkers made. Inreversing the trial court’s grant of Google’s summary judgment motion, the Courtof Appeal considered those alleged statements and other evidence Reid presentedin opposition to the motion.We agree with the Court of Appeal’s conclusions. Regarding the waiver issue, the Court of Appeal correctly determined that a finding of waiver does notdepend on whether a trial court rules expressly on evidentiary objections and thatGoogle’s filing of written evidentiary objections before the summary judgmenthearing preserved them on appeal. (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subds. (b)(5), (d).)
After a party objects to evidence, the trial court must then rule on those objections.If the trial court fails to rule after a party has properly objected, the evidentiaryobjections are not deemed waived on appeal. Regarding the stray remarks issue,the Court of Appeal also correctly determined that application of the stray remarksdoctrine is unnecessary and its categorical exclusion of evidence might lead tounfair results.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Reid worked at Google between June 2002 and February 2004. Google’svice-president of engineering, Wayne Rosing (then age 55) hired Reid (then age52) as director of operations and director of engineering. Reid has a Ph.D. incomputer science and is a former associate professor of electrical engineering atStanford University.In addition to Rosing, Reid also interacted with other high-level employees,including chief executive officer (CEO) Eric Schmidt (then age 47), vice-president
Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Code of CivilProcedure.2