No such count exists in the complaint! There is a component of Count V of that type but Count V can stand without it.
That said, the other bits in Count V are also fairly weak, though the sex/orientation/identity one is the weakest.
> one (slander) might survive if amended,
Not sure why you say that; while obviously the facts require trial the slander/false light charge seems to make all the necessary claims to establish the tort.
Defamation generally is a difficult charge to prove, although I doubt that the plaintiffs qualify as a public figure which makes actual malice (the most difficult element) irrelevant. I don't have a strong sense of how much of the elements of defamation are necessary in the pleading stage, especially the degree to which a pleading statement is fact versus conclusory allegation. In particular, paragraph 49 seems rather conclusory on the nature of damages actually suffered to reputation.
In that sense, if the allegation is deficient in the complaint, it's deficient in a way that an amended complaint would easily fix.
If the company says "xyz isn't evil" explicitly, then the motto doesn't give you the right to work against that.
This lawsuit is just childish.
The complaint centers on a Code of Conduct that the employees signed, and then that the employees were terminated for speaking out internally about what they felt was a violation of the "don't be evil" motto. I'm not sufficiently familiar with California employment and contract law to know how much of a leg this case has, but on a quick scan, one of the counts (discrimination due to sexual identity) is dead in motion-to-dismiss phase, one (slander) might survive if amended, and the other three will turn on whether or not the Code of Conduct's statements that employees should speak up about perceived violations of "don't be evil" is enough like a contract to make retaliation in firing because of it a violation of contract.
Notably, it never asks the court to decide if its acts were or were not evil. It's not insane enough to be thrown out immediately, but there's several facts about the Code of Conduct I'd want to learn about that aren't in the complaint.
[1] This should be standard practice for anyone reporting on legal cases, and it frustrates me to no end that it is not.