$100M Riot Games Workplace Gender Discrimination Settlement Granted Preliminary Approval

In recent news, the court granted preliminary approval to the proposed $100 million settlement to resolve workplace gender discrimination claims against Riot Games.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California

The Case No.: 18STCV03957

The Plaintiff: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

In 2018, the plaintiffs in the case, Melanie McCracken and Jess Negrón, filed a class action lawsuit against Riot Games in California federal court, arguing their former employer violated the California Equal Pay Act due to the allegedly hostile workplace. The female employees claimed Riot Games fostered a workplace culture of gender discrimination and harassment.

The Defendant: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

The defendant in the case, Riot Games, was founded in 2006. The company develops, publishes, and supports player-focused games worldwide. In 2009, the company released its debut title, League of Legends, which received worldwide recognition. League has since become the most-played PC game in the world and a significant component in the explosive growth of esports.

The Case: McCracken, et al. v. Riot Games, et al.

Previously, McCracken and Negrón agreed to a $10 million settlement with Riot Games. However, California's Department of Fair Employment Housing (DFEH) and Division of Labor Standards Enforcement halted the settlement after determining the amount inadequate for the case. The new settlement agreement calls for Riot Games to pay at least $80 million of the settlement in compensation to current and former female employees and contractors (employed by Riot Games between November 6th, 2014 to the present). According to the agreement, Riot Games will also put $6 million in a cash reserve for the next three years to fund programs designed to improve diversity, equity, and inclusion. The settlement agreement also requires Riot Games to hire third-party experts to ensure it improves its workplace culture by incorporating compliance audits and gender-equity analyses for the company. Judge Elihu M. Berle, Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge, approved the $100 million settlement on July 22nd, 2022. The settlement resolves claims that Riot Games' workplace was filled with systemic gender discrimination and harassment against female employees and temp workers. Under the agreement, approximately 1,065 female Riot employees and about 1,300 temp contract workers will receive a minimum of $80 million (with an additional $20 million paid in attorneys fees).

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss workplace discrimination violations, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Credit One Bank HR Generalist’s Disability Suit Proceeds After Ninth Circuit Reversal

Due to District Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey’s reversal, a former HR Generalist’s disability claim against Credit One Bank will proceed.

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

The Case No.: 20-15647

The Plaintiff: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The plaintiff in the case, Karen Shields, was an HR Generalist for Credit One Bank. After she took a medical leave of absence (citing an accommodation under the ADA), Shields claims her position was eliminated. According to Shields, her employer failed to accommodate her disability. Instead of allowing or providing appropriate accommodations after Shields underwent a bone biopsy surgery on her right shoulder and arm, the plaintiff claims that her employer terminated her from her human resources job.

The Defendant: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

The defendant in the case, Credit One Bank, argued that Shields failed to plead a disability because she didn’t adequately support a claim showing a physical or mental impairment that would “substantially limit one or more major life activities.” The district court granted the Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on the argument that Shields failed to adequately establish she had an “impairment” or “permanent or long term effects from an impairment.”

The Case: Karen Shields v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

However, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal. The Ninth Circuit noted that the broadened ADA and applicable EEOC regulations protect effects of “an impairment lasting or expected to last fewer than six months (29 CFR § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix)). Additionally, the Ninth Circuit court held that Shields, the plaintiff in the case, adequately alleged a disability under the ADA standards.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to file a wage and hour lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Diversity Recruiter Sues Google for Discrimination

April Curley, former diversity recruiter for Google, filed a class-action discrimination lawsuit. The class-action joins a long list of legal action from former employees ranging from sexual harassment to gender discrimination, many resulting in significant settlements.

The Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California San Jose Division

The Case No.: 4:22-cv-01735-YGR

The Plaintiff: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The plaintiff in the case, April Curley, is a former Diversity Recruiter for Google, LLC. Curley was hired to work for Google in 2014. She claims that during her six years with the tech giant she helped them hire 500 students from historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs). In March, Curley filed a class-action lawsuit in a California federal court alleging that Black employees at Google were told they didn’t get the corporate “culture,” they weren’t “googly” enough, and were often pigeon-holed into jobs with no chance for advancement, less visibility, deficient pay, etc. Curley also claims that black employees often received harsher job reviews, were given tougher interview questions, and were always asked to show their badge or other proof of employment. In response to the inconsistencies between her work as a Diversity Recruiter and actual business practices she alleges she saw in force at Google, Curley was very clear with her leadership about what needed to be changed. Instead of rewarding her for being proactive, Curley claims the company retaliated against her by subjecting her to policies and behaviors that she alleges were blatantly racist and biased. Curley claims they were both degrading and emotionally damaging. In 2020, Curley was terminated. Now she’s suing the company for systemic discrimination.

The Defendant: April Curley v. Google, LLC

The Defendant in the case, Google, LLC, is a tech giant that has faced a long string of legal battles with discrimination claims ranging from age discrimination to pregnancy discrimination. In April Curley v. Google, LLC, the company faces accusations of racial discrimination from one of their former Diversity Recruiters, April Curley.

Details of the Case: April Curley v. Google, LLC

Curley claims that during her time at the company, her white managers told her the way she speaks is a disability that should be disclosed to partners internally and externally before she conducts any meetings. She also claims that leadership at Google told her she was intimidating and unwelcoming so she was never considered for leadership positions. (The same woman who advised Curley of this also advised her that Google couldn’t afford her promotion). The Curley v. Google, LLC lawsuit seeks a court injunction to change policy and obtain back pay for Curley and other black employees allegedly denied promotion opportunities. Parties in the case are scheduled to be back in court on July 11th, 2022 for a Cas Management Conference.

If you have questions about California employment law or need to discuss labor law violations in the workplace, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Former Employee Sues PlayVS Alleging Pregnancy Discrimination

In recent news, PlayVS faces allegations that they engaged in pregnancy discrimination against a former employee.

The Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The Court: Los Angeles County Superior Court

The Case No.: 22STCV08523

The Plaintiff: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The plaintiff in the case, Waynick, is a former quality assurance analyst for PlayVS. According to the complaint, Waynick started working for PlayVS in January 2021 and advised PlayVS that she was pregnant on June 10, 2021. Allegedly, once they were aware of her pregnancy, the company placed her in a performance improvement plan. When Waynick complained about the discriminatory situation to Human Resources, she claimed the company ignored her complaint. Waynick claims that she was bullied and treated with hostility in the workplace leading to extreme stress. Due to pregnancy complications, her doctor advised her to take a leave. Waynick claims she was locked out of her computer when she returned from her leave. Later that same day, she was terminated on August 16, 2021.

The Defendant: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

The defendant in the case, Play Versus or PlayVS, is a high school esports platform. The company is being sued for wrongful termination by Waynick, a former employee who describes a pattern of harassment and a hostile workplace.

More About the Case: Waynick v. Play Versus, Inc.

Waynick claims PlayVS violated five different counts of California labor, including discrimination, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination, pregnancy leave violation, and wrongful termination.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a wrongful termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

Playstation’s Discrimination and Retaliation Lawsuit Dismissed by California Court

California court recently dismissed discrimination and retaliation claims against Playstation. However, they did note that further testimonies from additional women could be heard in a second filing.

The Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The Court: United States District Court of Northern California

The Case No.: 3:21-cv-09054

The Plaintiff: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The plaintiff in the case, Emma Majo, is a former Sony IT Staffer. Majo worked in Sony’s PlayStation Network department as an IT security risk analyst for six years before she was fired. The case left the court determining whether Sony engaged in systemic gender discrimination and failed to implement an effective system to prevent pay discrimination. According to the complaint, Majo’s department showed a 60-40 gender split upon her hiring, but the department is now male-dominated. Details of Majo’s case hint at broader institutional gender discrimination issues.

The Defendant: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The defendant in the case, Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC, denies allegations of pay disparity, wrongful termination, and other gender-based discrimination. As a result, the company filed a motion to dismiss.

Summary of the Case: Majo v. Sony Interactive Entertainment LLC

The United States District Court of North California granted PlayStation’s “motion to dismiss.” However, the motion to dismiss was granted with leave to amend. The motion to dismiss was granted for most claims because the allegations were most conclusory. Some individual claims survived, but the court does not have jurisdiction over the state claims after dismissing the federal claim, so all claims are dismissed. The court pointed out that Majo did not fully explain the allegations in the complaint. Still, the court acknowledged that three of the state claims had merit and noted that adding the additional eight women’s testimonies could lead to additional allegations. In concluding the ruling, the court indicated that the plaintiff might file a second amended complaint within 28 days. It’s likely the amended complaint, including the additional eight testimonies, will follow and allow the court the opportunity to fully examine them from the outset.

If you have questions about California employment law or need help filing a California age discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

$150,000 National Car Dealers Settlement to Resolve EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit

National Car Dealers to pay $150,000 settlement after worker allegedly fired after disclosing a potential cancer diagnosis filed an EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit.

The Case: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

The Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California

The Case No.: 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN

The Allegations: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

According to the allegations in the case, the employers terminated one of their title clerks in a Sacramento dealership over a possible cancer diagnosis. The employee was suddenly ill and missed several days of work. Following the missed days, she informed management that she was hospitalized and diagnostic testing was being completed to search for signs of cancer. According to the suit, the company fired the title clerk one day before her planned return - despite a medical release that allowed her to continue working. In the termination letter the company stated that they advised her to “focus on her health,” and noted it was not a performance-related termination.

The Defendant: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

The alleged conduct on the part of the employer in the case violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating against employees based on a disability or a perceived disability. The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 10, 2020 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Case No. 2:20-cv-02245-MCE-KJN). Before filling, the EEOC attempted to reach a pre-litigation settlement.

Case Details: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Cappo Management XXIX, Inc.

Defendant will pay $150,000 as well as hire a consultant to assist in facilitating positive change to current policies and training practices. Doing so enables them to settle the disability discrimination lawsuit as per settlement negotiations. In the consent decree settling the disability discrimination lawsuit, the $150,000 is designated as lost wages and emotional distress damages for workers. The companies are required to put new policies and procedures (or updated, revised policies and procedures) in place to offer reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities. Doing so requires them to retain an ADA consultant. Additionally, leave-based terminations will now require secondary reviews, and the company will begin to offer annual training to management and human resources personnel. Finally, the company will also start submitting reports to the EEOC during the three-year term of the settlement decree.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need to file a discrimination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.

After Being Ousted from “Jackass Forever” Movie, Bam Margera Sues

Bam Margera claims he was coerced into signing an agreement requiring him to submit to drug tests, use a breathalyzer 3x/day, and take his medications under the watch of a witness via Facetime.

The Case: Margera et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

The Court: Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles

The Case No.: 21STCV29254

The Plaintiff: Margera

Margera, the plaintiff in the case, claims he signed the Wellness Agreement requiring him to submit to drug tests, take medication over Facetime under the watch of a witness, and use a breathalyzer 3x/day under duress while he was in rehab. Margera filed a lawsuit at the beginning of August claiming that forcing him to sign the Wellness Agreement mandating all cast members remain sober during the filming of the upcoming 4th movie in the popular (and long-running) prank series was psychological torture. Margera was fired from the film for breaking his wellness agreement when he did not remain sober throughout filming. Margera claims not only that the Wellness Agreement was a sham, but that he was ultimately fired for his protected class status due to his medical condition (ADHD), and his complaints about the discriminatory nature of the Defendant’s behavior and requirements for him during filming.

The Defendant: Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

Defendant, Paramount Pictures Corp. et al., claims that all cast members working on the Jackass Forever film were required to sign a Wellness Agreement. Defendant responded to Plaintiff’s claims saying that the suit is riddled with lies. Defendant claims that Margera’s allegations that he was accosted by costars/coworkers in rehab and browbeat into signing a sobriety contract are false. Other claims included in the suit that Defendant argues are false include:

• Margera claims he was fraudulently induced or coerced into signing a talent agreement with Paramount; Paramount claims this is a lie.

• Margera claims paramount hired a doctor to force Margera to take a regimen of medication prescribed to Margera against his will; Paramount claims this is absurd and did not happen.

• Margera claims that he complied with the Wellness Program; Paramount claims he breached it.

• Margera claims he was fired for taking Adderall as a prescribed treatment for ADHD; Paramount claims the Adderall in Margera’s system was not prescribed and that Margera admitted he purchased it off the street.

Summary of the Case: Margera et al. v. Paramount Pictures Corp. et al.

In response to the August filing, Paramount responded with a special motion to strike claims for unfair competition and copyright infringement under California’s anti-SLAPP statute; which is intended to stop frivolous lawsuits arising from free speech claims on public issues. The filing immediately pauses discovery in any dispute. L.A. Superior Court Judge Draper’s tentative ruling on December 17, 2021, found the matter arises from “the creation, development, release, and distribution of Jackass Forever.” The judge acknowledged that the movie is intended for global distribution and has attracted additional attention due to the legal dispute, but he also found the minimal merit necessary in Margera’s claims what allows them to survive the anti-SLAPP motion and continue to discovery. While Defendants may ultimately prevail in the case, the SLAPP statute’s accelerated hearing ​​determined that the plaintiff should have the chance to conduct discovery to identify specific examples of orally developed ideas that may have been used in the creation of the film. Margera alleges wrongful termination, discrimination, and violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If you have questions about California employment law or if you need help establishing a wrongful termination claim, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Experienced employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago.