Employee Response to Bobby Kotick, Additional Information on Cosby Suite

[The Oblivion]

Sexual harassment is by no means confined to the workplace. Harassment by coworkers can occur off premises, at social functions or in the home for example. Not all interaction between workers happens within the confines of the office building, and as a result not all harassment cases begin with an on-site incident. Sexual harassment that occurs beyond the workplace is equally frowned upon and legally actionable. Location of an incident does not preclude the victim from (1) informing his or her employer about the harassment; and (2) taking the necessary steps to punish the accountable party(s). Harassment by coworkers, supervisors and others in the workplace should not be tolerated, no matter where it occurred. If you were sexually harassed outside of the workplace, you can still take action against the person who harassed you.
Wow one whole second in google.

I was actually going to link a lexis practice note but you sure as shit don't have a subscription to it.

EDIT
Here's one referencing calfornia law if you have an issue with the feds

thats just general sexual harassment. Has nothing to do with "blizzards duty of care" outside of work lmfao

[TheRevenantHero]

nope most people had no idea about bill cosby until 2014

- - - Updated - - -



this is completely false in any and all legal sense. you are just making shit up.

Except no it's not false. If an employee of a company goes to a convention held by the company and don't conduct themselves properly even when off the clock, they are considered to still be a representation of the company.

[The Oblivion]

Except no it's not false. If an employee of a company goes to a convention held by the company and don't conduct themselves properly even when off the clock, they are considered to still be a representation of the company.

except no, legally that is not true. the company CAN view it that way, but its not any type of legal requirement.

[uuuhname]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comme...tm_name=iossmf Ah, yet another little gem.... Jfc.

wow, a climate of sexual harassment so pervasive it (no pun intended) smacks you in the face just from walking though the front door.

[TheRevenantHero]

except no, legally that is not true. the company CAN view it that way, but its not any type of legal requirement.

If I go to a convention and one of the employees is off the clock and gropes me, I am absolutely allowed to sue the company. Because even when off the clock, they are representing the company while attending the convention held by said company.

[The Oblivion]

If I go to a convention and one of the employees is off the clock and gropes me, I am absolutely allowed to sue the company. Because even when off the clock, they are representing the company while attending the convention held by said company.

again, legally, no they are not. you are just making shit up. you can also sue anyone for anything, doesnt mean you will win. (hint: you would lose real quick) lmfao

for it to even stand a chance you would HAVE to at minimum prove the company knew it was bringing a dangerous person and allowed or encouraged their actions to take place. Nearly impossible for most. Except maybe blizzard. lmfao

[TheRevenantHero]

again, legally, no they are not. you are just making shit up. you can also so anyone for anything, doesnt mean you will win. (hint: you would lose real quick) lmfao

I'm not making anything up. Just because you don't like that you're wrong doesn't mean I'm making things up.

[LedZeppelin]

SO the response from Blizzard to all of this? To keep the employees from unionizing and covering their own asses. What cowards:

"To help accomplish that, the company has retained the services of prestigious law firm WilmerHale, which is the same law firm helping Amazon keep its workers from unionizing. Considering ongoing efforts to unionize game workers, the partnership is a little concerning."

https://kotaku.com/activision-blizza...ers-1847386654

Never playing again unless some people are CANNED and the employees are put FIRST. This tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about Blizz now.

That is a MASSIVE lawfirm. Calling it a union busting firm isnt right. Like calling anyone who defended someone who was guilty of murder as a 'murder supporter'

[The Oblivion]

I'm not making anything up. Just because you don't like that you're wrong doesn't mean I'm making things up.

you are making shit up. this would be no different then suing ANY company whose employee does anything outside of work in the city they work in. you are completely and utterly incorrect on this and just making up what you want to suit your own agenda.

[TheRevenantHero]

you are making shit up. this would be no different then suing ANY company whose employee does anything outside of work in the city they work in. you are completely and utterly incorrect on this and just making up what you want to suit your own agenda.

I'll say again, just because you don't like that you're wrong doesn't mean I'm making anything up. If you are attending a convention held by the company you work for, you are representing the company even when off the clock. So if an employee molested someone while off the clock at said convention, the victim can bring charges against the employee AND they can sue the company.

[The Oblivion]

That is a MASSIVE lawfirm. Calling it a union busting firm isnt right. Like calling anyone who defended someone who was guilty of murder as a 'murder supporter'

this is from reddit as well to give more info on the firm:

WilmerHale has over 1k attorneys. They have approximately 140 who do white collar investigations. They have 9 who are listed as labor and employment attorneys.

NINE. Proskauer rose has almost 200 attorney who do just traditional labor. Same with littler Mendelson.

Here’s a list of the top labor law firms: https://www.vault.com/best-companies...and-employment No WilmerHale. Here is usnwr rankings, which is criticized as being very permissive with how they rank top firms in a practice area : https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/sear...ce_area_id=102 The “top 127” management side labor firms. No WilmerHale

- - - Updated - - -

I'll say again, just because you don't like that you're wrong doesn't mean I'm making anything up. If you are attending a convention held by the company you work for, you are representing the company even when off the clock. So if an employee molested someone while off the clock at said convention, the victim can bring charges against the employee AND they can sue the company.

I'll say again, you are wrong in every possible way without even a grain of truth in your statement. you can file that suit, but you will just as quick lose that law suit. i cant help you anymore though. either you accept it or you dont. lmfao

i could bring a suit against you for making shit up on the internet. lmfao doesnt mean it has any grounds or i would win.

[TheRevenantHero]

this is from reddit was well to give more info on the firm

WilmerHale has over 1k attorneys. They have approximately 140 who do white collar investigations. They have 9 who are listed as labor and employment attorneys.

NINE. Proskauer rose has almost 200 attorney who do just traditional labor. Same with littler Mendelson.

Here’s a list of the top labor law firms: https://www.vault.com/best-companies...and-employment No WilmerHale. Here is usnwr rankings, which is criticized as being very permissive with how they rank top firms in a practice area : https://bestlawfirms.usnews.com/sear...ce_area_id=102 The “top 127” management side labor firms. No WilmerHale

- - - Updated - - -



again, you are wrong. you would lose that law suit. i cant help you anymore though. either you accept it or you dont. lmfao

Are you a lawyer? Because something tells me you're not and you're just saying I'm wrong because you'd rather be on the side of Blizzard. Because I went ahead and messaged a friend of mine who is a lawyer about this topic. They told me that the victim is absolutely within their rights to sue the company and have a very high chance of winning. Is it guaranteed? No. No lawsuit is. But the odds wouldn't be in Blizzard's favor.

[The Oblivion]

Are you a lawyer? Because something tells me you're not and you're just saying I'm wrong because you'd rather be on the side of Blizzard. Because I went ahead and messaged a friend of mine who is a lawyer about this topic. They told me that the victim is absolutely within their rights to sue the company and have a very high chance of winning. Is it guaranteed? No. No lawsuit is. But the odds wouldn't be in Blizzard's favor.

no i just have the ability to google and apply common sense.

and i am suuuuuuure you did and they did. let us know the lawyers name so we can avoid ever hiring them lmfao

[Saltysquidoon]

thats just general sexual harassment. Has nothing to do with "blizzards duty of care" outside of work lmfao

California law and federal law differ on who is liable for sexual harassment. Under the California law, FEHA, the employer is liable for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor, whether or not the employer knew about the harassment. In State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court concluded that “under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor.”

But strict liability is not absolute liability in the sense that it precludes all defenses. If the employer did not know about the harassment in time to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, the employer has a defense called the avoidable consequences defense, which reduces the damages recoverable by the victim. Damages can be reduced only if, taking account of the employer’s antiharassment policies and procedures and its past record of acting on harassment complaints, the employee acted unreasonably in not sooner reporting the harassment to the employer. (See the discussion of affirmative defenses in Section V of this chapter for a further explanation of how employers may limit their liability for damages when a victim delays making a report of the harassment to the employer.)

In Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., the plaintiff sued for sexual harassment including unwanted groping. The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District of California stated:
in order for the employer to avoid strict liability for the supervisor’s actions under FEHA, the harassment must result from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment. Otherwise, the employer is strictly liable for the supervisor’s actions regardless of whether the supervisor was acting as the employer’s agent….
Here, the harassment did not result from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment.

In this case, there was no personal dating relationship between plaintiff and the harasser at the time of the most significant incidents of harassment, which occurred during work-related driving excursions. As a result, the Myers court found that the employer was strictly liable in this case.


Just keep digging my man, you'll finish internet law school one day.

Just because I'm not sure you're following, at this point we have established there is no innate geographic or temporal limit on when workplace sexual harassment occurs between two employees. Further, we've established that an employer is strictly liable when a supervisory employee (i.e king sex pest himself) sexually harasses junior employees.
Maybe its time to stop.

EDIT
"Applying common sense" is the last gasp of a dead pseudo-legal argument.

[TheRevenantHero]

no i just have the ability to google and apply common sense.

and i am suuuuuuure you did and they did. let us know the lawyers name so we can avoid ever hiring them lmfao

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...cts-29638.html

https://www.tysonmendes.com/can-empl...tious-conduct/

I'm sure you'll say they're wrong too, though.

[The Oblivion]

California law and federal law differ on who is liable for sexual harassment. Under the California law, FEHA, the employer is liable for sexual harassment committed by a supervisor, whether or not the employer knew about the harassment. In State Department of Health Services v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court concluded that “under FEHA, an employer is strictly liable for all acts of sexual harassment by a supervisor.”

But strict liability is not absolute liability in the sense that it precludes all defenses. If the employer did not know about the harassment in time to take immediate and appropriate corrective action, the employer has a defense called the avoidable consequences defense, which reduces the damages recoverable by the victim. Damages can be reduced only if, taking account of the employer’s antiharassment policies and procedures and its past record of acting on harassment complaints, the employee acted unreasonably in not sooner reporting the harassment to the employer. (See the discussion of affirmative defenses in Section V of this chapter for a further explanation of how employers may limit their liability for damages when a victim delays making a report of the harassment to the employer.)

In Myers v. Trendwest Resorts, Inc., the plaintiff sued for sexual harassment including unwanted groping. The Court of Appeal for the Third Appellate District of California stated:
in order for the employer to avoid strict liability for the supervisor’s actions under FEHA, the harassment must result from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment. Otherwise, the employer is strictly liable for the supervisor’s actions regardless of whether the supervisor was acting as the employer’s agent….
Here, the harassment did not result from a completely private relationship unconnected with the employment.

In this case, there was no personal dating relationship between plaintiff and the harasser at the time of the most significant incidents of harassment, which occurred during work-related driving excursions. As a result, the Myers court found that the employer was strictly liable in this case.


Just keep digging my man, you'll finish internet law school one day.

you keep linking general sexual harassment information. This one pertaining to supervisors.

none of which is relevant to your bs statement of "Blizzard's duty of care is going to extend to event held by employees featuring other employees in and around the venue as none of these employee-on-employee interactions would have happened but for blizzcon. This is why HR representatives should have been shutting this shit down, not attending it."

you seem to not even understand what you yourself was written LMFAO

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...cts-29638.html

https://www.tysonmendes.com/can-empl...tious-conduct/

I'm sure you'll say they're wrong too, though.

you need to re read what you just linked buddy. they support me, not you. lmao

"An employer will be held liable if the injury occurred 1) with the employer’s stated or implied permission, and 2) the conduct provided a benefit to the employer or has become customary."

[TheRevenantHero]

you keep linking general sexual harassment information. This one pertaining to supervisors.

none of which is relevant to your bs statement of "Blizzard's duty of care is going to extend to event held by employees featuring other employees in and around the venue as none of these employee-on-employee interactions would have happened but for blizzcon. This is why HR representatives should have been shutting this shit down, not attending it."

you seem to not even understand what you yourself was written LMFAO

- - - Updated - - -



you need to re read what you just linked buddy. they support me, not you. lmao

...Those links literally discuss that if an employee is doing something off the clock that is considered misconduct while doing something work related, the employer can be held responsible. Which means if a Blizzard employee does something wrong at Blizzcon while off the clock, Blizzard can and likely will be held responsible. The fact that you're saying the links support you just shows you didn't actually fucking click the links. And even when Saltysquidoon showed you another example of why Blizzard would be held responsible, you spew some nonsense that proves you read bits and pieces of what was said.

It's clear you are only interested in believing your own thoughts despite the evidence provided to the contrary so I'm just not going to bother anymore.

[JSoup]

So reading this thrilling back and forth between RevenantHero and Oblivion, I figured a more productive way to settle this would be to attempt to look it up. What lawyers I could find talking on the subject (and I'm positive more youtube law people will be making videos on same in the coming days/weeks), the answer of what laws do or do not apply comes down to the arguments made. Seems lots of folks understand that the sexual harassment angle has some rather large loopholes built into it that a smart lawyer could drive a cement truck through without checking his mirrors. The general agreement so far is it's going to come down first to an interpretation of labor laws as it relates to liability. That is, were the harassed employees in question actually acting as employees during the events, because yes or no to that question changes how to proceed.

I have some limited second-hand experience in that last part. I used to be a vendor in the California convention circuit and something like this would come up every other show. With the understanding that I'm not privy to whatever hashed out arguments took place behind closed doors, the end result always started with "is the person who did this too you working for the convention staff or other" and ended with "if convention staff, were they on duty at the time of the action", and then some undisclosed settlement is reached. Take from that what you will.

[The Oblivion]

...Those links literally discuss that if an employee is doing something off the clock that is considered misconduct while doing something work related, the employer can be held responsible. Which means if a Blizzard employee does something wrong at Blizzcon while off the clock, Blizzard can and likely will be held responsible. The fact that you're saying the links support you just shows you didn't actually fucking click the links. And even when Saltysquidoon showed you another example of why Blizzard would be held responsible, you spew some nonsense that proves you read bits and pieces of what was said.

It's clear you are only interested in believing your own thoughts despite the evidence provided to the contrary so I'm just not going to bother anymore.

please, re read the links. it goes very specific why they were held liable. mainly, the employee's working ON COMPANY PROPERTY, were allowed to remain ON COMPANY PROPERTY after hours so they could be called on to work (this is the benefit required). So it had to be on company grounds and only because they would call on those employee's for duties were they liable. NONE of this applies to blizzcon. LMFAO keep trying.

[Itisamuh]

If your police department consists of nothing but white officers who are regularly killing black people, it's generally considered a reasonable move to replace the chief with someone who is black in order to boost confidence that reform measures are more than simply lip-service. In Blizzard's case, so far all the management people have been making excuses for themselves or suggesting it didn't happen or was just a joke, etc. and I don't feel it's going to be possible for them to survive this until they have someone in charge who can't be accused of being just another sexist male.

If you are appointing people for any reason other than merit, then it is sexism/racism/whatever other form of discrimination or favoritism you want. It makes no difference if the person getting passed over is a white male or a black female, or a blue person who ignores basic biological facts, if the reason they got passed over is because they did or did not fit such a physical description, that is racism/sexism/whatever else the case may be. It absolutely boggles my mind how the left are unable to understand such a simple concept, leading to blind hypocrisy in their goofy agendas.