Activision Blizzard is trying to get the discrimination suit thrown out of court


Activision Blizzard, facing a discrimination lawsuit from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (or DFEH), has filed an application to stay that lawsuit so it can investigate claims that DFEH lawyers engaged in ethical misconduct.
The application claims that the DFEH is represented in the case by lawyers who previously worked for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or EEOC) — a federal agency that investigates claims of workplace abuse. The application additionally claims such an arrangement is in violation of a California State Bar conflict of interest rule that says, “a lawyer who has formerly served as a public official or employee of the government […] shall not otherwise represent a client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public official or employee.”
The application basically alleges that DFEH lawyers should be disqualified from participating in this case against Activision Blizzard since those lawyers previously worked on a similar, prior case against the company when they were employed by the EEOC.
Activision Blizzard recently settled another discrimination lawsuit brought forth by the EEOC for $18 million. The DFEH is trying to block that settlement, and it’s actually the EEOC that raised ethical concerns against DFEH lawyers (perhaps to maintain its win).
“The EEOC claims that two of the DFEH attorneys who have appeared in this case (and who currently ‘play leadership roles within the [DFEH]’) ‘previously served as EEOC [REDACTED],’ during which time they ‘helped to direct the EEOC’s investigation’ against Activision Blizzard,” the application states.
If the court upholds the stay and decides that DFEH lawyers did violate conflict of interest rules, Activision Blizzard claims the case could be in serious trouble. According to the company’s filing, “Violation of these rules could lead to the disqualification not only of the two attorneys at issue, but of the entire group of DFEH attorneys with whom they have worked. It also calls into question the integrity of the underlying investigation itself.”
This move comes just as Blizzard announced 20 employees “exited” the company in the wake of harassment investigations and reprimanded some 20 more. In the months since these lawsuits were made public, some Blizzard employees have continued to agitate for a more equitable workplace, making demands of the company to end forced arbitration and provide greater pay transparency.
The EEOC and the DFEH didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment, and neither the DFEH nor the EEOC have had a chance to formally challenge Activision Blizzard’s claims: neither have filed responses to this application in the courts.
A Blizzard spokesperson says of the filings, “We look forward to resolving the case with the DFEH fairly in an appropriate court. We share the EEOC and DFEH’s goal of a safe, inclusive workplace that rewards employees equitably and remain committed to the elimination of harassment and discrimination in our workplace.”
A hearing on the application will take place October 20th.
Activision Blizzard, facing a discrimination lawsuit from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (or DFEH), has filed an application to stay that lawsuit so it can investigate claims that DFEH lawyers engaged in ethical misconduct. The application claims that the DFEH is represented in the case by lawyers…
Recent Posts
Archives
- February 2025
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2018
- October 2017
- December 2011
- August 2010