In a lawsuit between Activision Blizzard and the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a proposed $18 million settlement appeared to be derailed in October, when the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing was taking its own action against Activision Blizzard. Object to itDFEH stated that the settlement may result in the “effective destruction” of key evidence and cause “irreparable harm” to its lawsuit against the publisher.
Bloomberg It was reported last week that the judge in the case stated that she would reject DFEH’s request for intervention, and the decision has now been made.in a ruling The court released yesterday stated that DFEH’s proposition of “protecting the interests of California and its workers” is too broad and will enable it to intervene in almost all employment-related cases in the state, and its concerns about evidence destruction are “speculative at best. of.”
U.S. District Judge Dell S. Fisher wrote: “As a practical matter, this case will not impair or impede DFEH’s ability to protect its interests.” “Except for the speculative evidence destruction argument, the proposed consent decree will not also It will not affect DFEH’s ongoing litigation against the defendant. Even if DFEH is interested in ensuring adequate and fair compensation for the individual’s claim process, the consent order seems to prevent DFEH from reaching a separate agreement with the defendant in its own case. To supplement the recovery of individuals who choose to participate in the claims process.”
In other words, accepting payments from the EEOC settlement will not prevent individuals from also participating in state-level DFEH claims against Activision Blizzard.
This is not necessarily the end of DFEH’s efforts. The court found that although “formal intervention” is not appropriate, there is enough “public interest” to express its position through the amicus curiae briefing. The amicus brief is a document submitted by the amicus, that is, people who are not directly involved in the case but have relevant professional knowledge or opinions can help guide the court’s decision. This means that even if DFEH’s request to intervene in this case is denied, “its concerns can be expressed… and will be considered by the court.”
DFEH was also told to keep the case “succinct”, which in this case meant no more than 15 pages. However, the position may have practical implications: the proposed settlement between Activision Blizzard and EEOC has not yet been approved, and the ruling invites DFEH to continue to participate, which shows me that the court believes its concerns are at least worth considering.
However, Activision Blizzard expressed its belief that the ruling will clear the way for the final approval of the settlement. “The agreement we reached with EEOC reflects Activision’s commitment to major improvements and transparency,” a representative told PC Gamer in an email. “We are still optimistic that it will soon be approved by the court to provide immediate compensation to eligible employees who choose to participate.”
I have contacted DFEH for comments and I will update if I receive a response.