This is a civil case, where the causes of action arise either from contractual violations or from private rights of action authorized by law. The counts alleged are "breach of contract", "promissory estoppel", "breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" (all three of which are essentially saying "Google legally promised they wouldn't do something they did, and it hurt me"), defamation, and, uh, "termination in violation of public policy" (which is basically saying it violates employment discrimination laws, and is at best poorly drafted in the complaint).

In this case, the tossing out would be along the lines of "the facts alleged in the complaint are, even if true, insufficient to let you bring this lawsuit" (or, more succinctly, "failure to state a claim [upon which relief can be granted]").

Laws don't have to be broken in a civil case.

Yes, they do. Criminal laws don't have to be broken, but criminal laws aren't the only kind of laws.

I'd be nice of the judge to censure the lawyers for wasting the court's time too.