"Reid produced sufficient evidence that Google's (stated) reasons for terminating him were untrue or pretextual, and that Google acted with discriminatory motive such that a fact-finder would conclude Google engaged in age discrimination," Presiding Justice Conrad L. Rushing wrote.

The Mountain View-based search engine company has denied Reid's allegations but also refused to say why he was fired. In court documents, the company said Reid was fired when the program he managed was canceled.

Reid, a former associate electrical engineering professor at Stanford University, sued Google in July 2004, five months after he lost his job as its director of operations.

He alleged in his suit that his supervisors did not initially tell him why he was being fired. Director of Engineering Wayne Rosing, 55, eventually said he was not a good "cultural fit" at Google, where some colleagues referred to him as an "old guy" and "fuddy-duddy," Reid said.

Another supervisor, Urs Hoelzle allegedly said Reid, who is a diabetic, was too sluggish and "too old to matter" and his ideas were obsolete.

Reid is seeking back pay and punitive damages. He made $200,000 a year and lost stock options valued at millions of dollars when he lost his job.

Allowing investors to file class-action lawsuits in such cases would "threaten the safety and soundness of individual financial institutions and the nation's banking system," a coalition of business groups, including the American Bankers Association, said in court papers.

Firms and corporations that enabled companies such as Enron to defraud stockholders should now have to pay, lawyers for the investors say.

"The banks orchestrated the fraud; they weren't sideline viewers," said Patrick Coughlin, the lead lawyer for Enron shareholders. "So when the question comes up about who should be on the hook for Enron, it's the banks."

Meir Feder, a New York lawyer who defends companies in securities cases, said "everybody understands that the Enron shareholders are victims here, but there's a reason that Congress and the Supreme Court haven't allowed people to sue third parties."

He added, "In the real world, for every third party who actually had a role in a fraud, you're going to get lots of suits against other third parties who really didn't."

When the Supreme Court hears arguments on the issue Tuesday, Enron investors will be on the sidelines. The court is dealing with a suit by Stoneridge Investment Partners against Motorola Inc. and Scientific-Atlanta Inc., which Cisco Systems Inc. now owns.

Only eight of the nine justices will participate. Justice Stephen Breyer has withdrawn from the case; he gave no reason, but financial disclosure documents state he owned Cisco stock.

Chief Justice John Roberts, who did not participate in the court's decision to take the suit, has come back into it.

The Stoneridge case has strong parallels to the one pursued by Enron shareholders, which the high court has left alone. The Enron suit was up for consideration June 21 at one of the justices' regularly scheduled private conferences, but the court has neither accepted nor rejected it.

"It's easier to decide a legal issue in a noncharged atmosphere, which may have been what the justices had in mind by not taking on Enron," Coughlin said.

Stoneridge accused Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta of engaging in sham transactions with a cable television company, Charter Communications Inc. The alleged motive was to inflate Charter's revenue by $17 million, help meet Wall Street expectations and avoid a drop in the company's stock price.

Because of a number of deals including the ones involving Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta, Charter eventually restated its financial statements, reducing revenue by $292 million from 2000-2002. In addition, four former Charter executives pleaded guilty in the matter after the Justice Department investigated the deals.

Stoneridge's efforts to recoup investment losses from Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta were turned back by lower courts, which said that the allegations were nothing more than claims that the two companies aided and abetted the fraud by Charter. Neither Motorola nor Scientific-Atlanta was alleged to have engaged in any deceptive act, the courts said.

Enron investors got a similar ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that Enron had a duty to disclose financial problems to shareholders, but the company's banks did not.

In both cases, the issue comes down to the meaning of the word "deceptive" in federal securities law.

At stake in the Enron case is more than $30 billion sought by hundreds of thousands of investors from banks that allegedly helped the company, once the nation's seventh-largest, hide billions in debt and make failing ventures appear profitable.

The Enron case and the Stoneridge investors' suit are the latest chapter in the struggle between plaintiffs attorneys and the business world over class-action suits.

When lawyers who file such suits persuade a court to certify a large class of plaintiffs, companies almost always settle rather than risk going to trial. A 2002 study for the conservative Federalist Society found that three of every four federal securities fraud cases were settled, with the remainder thrown out of court.

Since 2000, investors filing federal class-action suits alleging securities fraud have settled for $42 billion, according to the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

So far, some banks have settled with Enron investors: Citibank for $2 billion; J.P. Morgan Chase for $2.2 billion; Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce for $2.4 billion.

Others are still fighting: Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.; Credit Suisse First Boston; Barclays Bank PLC; Pershing LLC, now a subsidiary of Bank of New York Mellon Corp. For investors, recent developments have gone against them.

The Securities and Exchange Commission voted to intervene in the Stoneridge case on the side of investors. But the Justice Department solicitor general, after pitches from President Bush and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, rejected the SEC's recommendation and filed a brief on the side of Motorola and Scientific-Atlanta.

Pasquarelli on the circumstances that could lead to a one-year penalty: "Under the two-year policy, which essentially wipes a player's slate clean, Henry was scheduled to rotate out of the substance abuse program on Oct. 1. But his lawsuit to block further testing of his urine sample was filed Sept. 20, indicating that the positive test occurred before Oct. 1."

The Food and Drug Administration may establish a "behind the counter" system allowing more drugs that currently require a prescription to be sold without one.

In a notice set to be published in today's Federal Register, the agency announced a Nov. 14 hearing to explore "the public health benefit of drugs being available without a prescription but only after intervention by a pharmacist."

Such intervention could require a pharmacist to make sure a patient meets certain criteria to get a particular drug and to instruct the patient how to properly use it.

Currently, most drugs are sold either with a prescription or over the counter in retail stores and pharmacies. The agency has carved out a few exceptions, including limiting distribution of Barr Pharmaceuticals Inc. "Plan B" emergency-contraceptive pill to pharmacies that agreed to keep it behind the counter and to require women to show a photo identification to prove they are age 18 or older.

Some groups that have called for a behind-the-counter status for drugs have said it might allow certain drugs sold with a prescription to be safely sold without one.

In 2005, an FDA panel of outside medical experts turned down a bid by Merck & Co. and Johnson & Johnson to sell Mevacor, a cholesterol-lowering drug, without a prescription. Several panel members said the FDA should consider establishing a behind-the-counter system that would allow consumers to purchase Mevacor from pharmacists much like the British are allowed to purchase Merck's Zocor, another cholesterol-lowering drug. Most panel members said that, if such a system existed in the U.S., they would have voted to allow Mevacor to be sold without a prescription.

The FDA noted that other countries with behind-the-counter status include Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland.

Along with a Nov. 14 meeting to solicit public comments on the issue, the FDA said it is also seeking written or electronic comments on the issue until Nov. 28.

The agency said it wants input such issues as whether there should be a behind-the-counter status for certain drugs and whether the status should be a transitional way for prescription products to eventually move to over-the-counter status, where consumers can purchase products on store shelves. Other questions include the impact on patient safety and whether it would improve access to medications.

The agency said certain logistical questions would need to be addressed, including pharmacy storage and dispensing of the medications along with questions about whether and how pharmacists might be reimbursed.

Just last week, the appeals court was given a similar appeal for Carlton Turner Jr., a Dallas man set to die for killing his parents, but refused to stop his punishment. The Supreme Court, which last week agreed to review whether lethal injection is unconstitutionally cruel in a claim raised by two condemned Kentucky inmates, gave Turner a reprieve a few hours later, sparing him a trip to the nation's busiest death chamber in Huntsville.

The Kentucky lethal injection procedure is the same one used by Texas and other states. Although Chi's lawyers were prepared to go to the Supreme Court, his appeal never got that far.

"I'm grateful there's some measure of common sense descending on the great state of Texas," Wes Ball, Chi's attorney, said. "We're not left in the wilderness."

Chi would have been the 27th inmate executed in Texas this year, far more than any other state.

"We're actually joining the company of perhaps more progressive states like Alabama and Florida," Ball said. "Somebody's finally going to decide this question, so let's stop killing people. If we're supposed to kill them, we can kill them later."

In its brief order, the appeals court gave state lawyers 30 days to address the question of "whether the current method of administering lethal injection in Texas constitutes cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

In their appeal, Chi's attorneys said the execution procedure "creates a wholly unnecessary, unacceptable risk that he will experience excruciating pain and suffering."

The Texas Attorney General's Office has said it will review each condemned inmate with an approaching execution date on a case-by-case basis. Gov. Rick Perry, who could issue a 30-day reprieve, has said through a spokesman that the matter is for the courts to resolve but also has said he believes the procedure is proper.

Early last week, within hours of the Supreme Court announcement in the Kentucky case, the courts allowed Texas officials to execute Michael Richard for a slaying 21 years ago. Lawyers attributed his execution moving forward to procedural hurdles they couldn't overcome in the hours immediately after the high court announced its Kentucky review. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals never ruled in his case because the appeal was filed past the court's 5 p.m. closing time.

In Turner's case, the Texas court voted 5-4 against stopping his punishment. The order in Chi's reprieve listed no dissenters among the judges.

Attorneys involved in death penalty litigation viewed Chi's case as a better indicator of the immediate future of lethal injection in Texas, where 405 inmates have received the toxic drug combinaton since the state resumed capital punishment in 1982.

Earlier Tuesday, Terence O'Rourke, a lawyer in the Chi case working with the government of Honduras, lost a request to the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles for a commutation request or 180-day reprieve.

O'Rourke's focus was on Chi's inability to contact someone from the Honduran government, a violation of an international treaty, after he was arrested for the 2001 slaying of Armand Paliotta.

The board voted Tuesday 7-0 against a request for commutation. The request for a 180-day reprieve failed in a 4-3 vote.

The International Court of Justice in The Hague, ruling in a suit Mexico filed against the United States, has said the convictions of about 50 Mexican-born prisoners violated the 1963 Vienna Convention because they were denied legal help available under the treaty. President Bush then ordered new state court hearings for those prisoners based on the ruling, but his order applies only to imprisoned Mexican citizens.

State Supreme Court Justice Thomas Farber said he would not release Colliton until he had imposed the sentence. The judge scheduled sentencing for Oct. 11.

Colliton, 43, admitted he had sex numerous times with one girl younger than 15 and another under 17 between Dec. 25, 2000, and March 1, 2005. He also admitted he visited a prostitute younger than 17 between August 2000 and February 2004.

Colliton's lawyer, Howard Greenberg, said his client faced 30 years in prison if he had been convicted at trial on a 43-count indictment that charged him with numerous counts of rape and sodomy.

Prosecutor Rachel Hochhauser said she was ready for trial but Colliton had agreed to "take responsibility for his actions" and plead guilty. She said the victims were told of the disposition of the case and "supported it."

Colliton, formerly of the prestigious Manhattan law firm Cravath, Swaine & Moore, fled the country in February 2006 after learning that police wanted to talk to him.

The 38-year-old mother, whose name was withheld to protect her daughters' identities, pleaded guilty in April 2006 to endangering the welfare of a child. She admitted she allowed her girls to have sex with Colliton and knew he was giving them money and gifts.