Activision-Blizzard Sued By California

[Elegiac]

I'm aware of what the state of CA has alleged Activision-Blizzard

Nooooooo.

Read Blizzard's statement.

They said "they have made several changes" - i.e. those changes were necessary. They would have not have been necessary if there weren't a problem.

There's a difference between being impartial and having your head up your ass.

[Elegiac]

If there is an inadequate system, you would use the EEOC, which Julian did.

And here's where we get into you not understanding what the tech industry's employment pool looks like.

Do you know what an NDA is?

- - - Updated - - -

Yes. They worked with DFEH and made changes to comply with DFEH.

The changes wouldn't have been necessary if there were no wrongdoing.

[Edge-]

While every situation is different, there was a lot more evidence about Riot (provided by Kotaku https://kotaku.com/inside-the-cultur...mes-1828165483 ).

Again, that was a class action lawsuit, not formal charges brought against them by the state following a multi-year investigation.

I'm more or less surprised that if this was allegedly so pervasive that we haven't heard anything from any of the alleged victims (anonymously or otherwise) outside of Julian Murillo-Cuellar.

Many men and especially women who still work or formerly worked at Blizzard have come out to validate these stories. Many can't specifically speak about it due to the pending lawsuit, but it's not remotely surprising that extensive harassment has been covered up for long periods of time. Riots own class action lawsuit brought by some women working there backs this up. So does the extensive reporting on how pervasive sexual harassment in Ubisoft has been as it's been covered over the past year+.

[Levelfive]

I'm aware of what the state of CA has alleged Activision-Blizzard, but as of now, the state of CA hasn't presented any evidence.

I'm not sure that you are. They state clearly that they attempted numerous times to resolve these issues prior to litigation through mediation and dispute resolution, directly contradicting Activision's claims that "[DFEH] were required by law to adequately investigate and to have good faith discussions with us to better understand and to resolve any claims or concerns before going to litigation, but they failed to do so. Instead, they rushed to file an inaccurate complaint, as we will demonstrate in court." which for some reason you have accepted at face value, despite your posture of impartiality.

[Edge-]

True, though the DFEH and DLSE are also involved in the case (specifically, they disagree with the settlement amount).

Recently, yes. You keep referring the lawsuit and settlement as if that was it, and as if that was directly comparable to the state lawsuit against Blizzard. It's not. And given that the state has yet to formally file charges against Riot, there remains no direct comparison.

It. Is. A. Bad. Comparison.

[Elegiac]

There wouldn't be a legal case if CA and Activision-Blizzard agreed. CA has accused Activision-Blizzard of a litany of items, but they're all stated as allegations.

If there were no wrongdoing Blizzard would not have had to make changes to be compliant, which Blizzard is aware of and why they don't actually dispute the necessity of the audit in the first place.

You're falling for PR spin.

[Elegiac]

I respectfully disagree that it's a bad comparison.

That's nice, but facts don't care about your feelings. It's factually a shitty comparison.

The real mystery here is why y'all feel the need to white-knight for free when Blizzard already has a paid team of lawyers and PR reps to do that for them. If you're so confident there's no wrongdoing why get your knickers in a twist at people claiming there is?

[Elegiac]

If the work place allegations at Blizzard are true, it's a fairly similar situation to Riot.

Aside from a class action suit being entirely different from a suit over compliance failure, sure.

However, I don't why Blizzard was working with DFEH and Riot was not.

Because they agreed to an audit as an alternative to litigation - i.e. admitted wrongdoing. This comes as it does as a result of failure to abide by the terms of that alternative. It's the equivalent of parole violation.

I don't get what about this is so difficult for you.

[Edge-]

If the work place allegations at Blizzard are true, it's a fairly similar situation to Riot.

Again, a class action lawsuit and state charges following a multi-year investigation Are. Not. The. Same.

However, I don't why Blizzard was working with DFEH and Riot was not.

Because the state had already identified problems and Blizzard was legally required to resolve them. The state had not done that with Riot.

This continues to be an awful comparison.

[Elegiac]

Do you have a source where Activision Blizzard admitted any wrongdoing?

*gestures*

All I've seen is them stating clearly that they worked with the DFEH

Why are you making an argument that not even Blizzard themselves are silly enough to try, is the question.

[beanman12345]

And that is one precise case (bad road with snow). Nice way to nitpick btw. But we are used to that from you.

We are used to Endus easily wrecking every argument you make, yes.

[Levelfive]

There wouldn't be a legal case if CA and Activision-Blizzard agreed. CA has accused Activision-Blizzard of a litany of items, but they're all stated as allegations.

I think reading is not your strong suit. I didn't claim they agreed on anything, I said Activision's statement directly contradicts DFEH claims laid out in the complaint, specifically when they say DFEH failed to engage in "good faith discussions with us to better understand and to resolve any claims or concerns before going to litigation" which is directly contradicted in the complaint where DFEH explains they "required all parties to participate in mandatory dispute resolution free of charge in an effort to resolve the dispute without litigation. Specifically, DFEH invited Defendants to participate in a mediation session with the department's internal dispute resolution division on July 1, 2, and 15, 2021, but the parties were unable to resolve the administrative complaints." You have taken Activision's word at face value while disregarding the State's under the guise of being concerned with "evidence."

[Elegiac]

Because I disagree that working with the DFEH to implement those changes is an admission of guilt. It's a correction of compliance.

Not being in compliance with the law is guilt by definition, bro.

This is getting to pathetic levels of reaching.

[Specialka]

We are used to Endus easily wrecking every argument you make, yes.

You mean when he dodges the question ?

[beanman12345]

You mean when he dodges the question ?

Saying this is admitting you are either incapable of reading, or you are a liar. Either way, second hand embarrassment.

[Edge-]

Though, this did come out: https://twitter.com/skrutsick/status...495762944?s=20 which, unfortunately, does collaborate the pattern of behavior.

https://www.reddit.com/r/wow/comment..._frat/h62n78j/

She's hardly alone.

[Levelfive]

Not being in compliance with the law is guilt by definition, bro.

This is getting to pathetic levels of reaching.

In this telling, not being in compliance doesn't mean they're guilty of not being in compliance, it means there was an inadvertent compliance shortage that didn't synergize with statutory guidelines that may or may not have been incompatible with with the actual extant amount of compliance as measured, possibly arbitrarily, or in need of correcting. Hard to say.

[Elegiac]

In this telling, not being in compliance doesn't mean they're guilty of not being in compliance, it means there was an inadvertent compliance shortage that didn't synergize with statutory guidelines that may or may not have been incompatible with with the actual extant amount of compliance as measured, possibly arbitrarily, or in need of correcting.

Schrödinger's Compliance.

Y'all, you're either compliant or you're not. You can't be half-pregnant.

[Traveler Voltin]

I rather imagine that gamer/developer culture in these studios is not unique to Blizzard. California picked the largest, most visible target. They may eventually file suit against others or this may be some sort of shot across the bow for everyone in this business in California.

As I said in a couple of the closed threads, none of this should be surprising. There were always hints and in some cases articles that hinted at the frat house atmosphere in Blizzard's workplace. It's not a giant leap to go from frat-house/bro culture to any of this.

For anyone imagining there will be an actual trial, probably not. The sensible thing to do is to mollify the state of California, demonstrate the willingness to fix stuff, show some progress that over the last two years they've worked on this, adjust pay scales, and generally promise the state to do better. This will be settled out of court, Blizzard will pay some fine (probably a slap on the hand amount) and then it will be up to Blizzard management to insure it sticks. There may be a few heads that roll but I wouldn't expect that it would be any big names (for the most part the really big legacy names that tolerated this for years have already left) but office behavior is ripe for a reset since everyone has been working from home for the last year anyway.

They have a lot of what's needed—sensitivity training, diversity programs, etc.—in place. Now they need to take them seriously. As a consequence of this just about every other game/development studio with HQ/offices in California will look inward, take note and likely do the same.

i just hope that this is the thing that forces Blizzard to change for the better.

[Levelfive]

What I'm stating is that's the crux of the dispute.

CA is saying Blizzard didn't comply. Blizzard is stating that it did comply. CA is clearly stating we tried to resolve this on 7/1, 7/2, 7/15 but didn't feel that Blizzard effectively resolved the issue CA had.

I'm not immediately taking CA's side just because they're stating we tried to resolve this on these dates and Blizzard didn't resolve the issue. Blizzard, conversely, is saying we did resolve the issues.

Obviously, the DFEH disagrees that Activision Blizzard resolved the issue.

Dude, stop shifting goalposts. At issue is your acceptance of Activion's claim that DFEH *failed to attempt dispute resolution,* NOT whether there was a failure to resolve anything, which is evident.