Activision Blizzard discrimination case shouldn’t halt over agency feud, California argues in new court filing


After Activision Blizzard requested a stay in the discrimination case brought against it by the state of California, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has filed its response.
Activision Blizzard’s request for a stay asserts that lawyers with the DFEH engaged in misconduct arising from a conflict of interest. According to the filing, some of the lawyers working on the case had previously worked on a separate case against the company when they were employed by the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (or EEOC). Such an arrangement, Activision Blizzard argues, is in violation of a California state bar conflict of interest rule. As a result, the discrimination case should be put on hold until the conflict is settled.
Today in the superior court of California, the DFEH filed its response: “Activision hopes to conjure a scandal from these mundane facts, based on an aggressive misreading of California Rules of Professional Conduct.” Both the objection and DFEH’s response are only arguments, and have no legal force without a ruling from the court.
The DFEH argues that the two lawyers in question had little involvement in the EEOC’s investigation of Activision Blizzard during their time there. Even if there were a conflict, the filing continues, the lawyers in question have already been taken off the case and the DFEH is being represented in this case by an outside law firm.
Activision Blizzard’s objection arises from a conflict between the two employment agencies that have filed suit against the company. Earlier this month, EEOC brought the alleged conflict of interest to light after the DFEH tried to intervene in the $18 million dollar settlement between the EEOC and Activision Blizzard.
The DFEH argues that the settlement is premature and that the EEOC did not investigate the matter properly before providing Activision Blizzard with the option to settle. Furthermore, the DFEH claims interference was necessary because the settlement between Activision Blizzard and the EEOC which, again, is a federal agency, could protect it from litigation already filed on behalf of the state — in this case the DFEH.
The EEOC told The Verge it has no comment beyond its filings and the DFEH says it cannot comment on an open case. In a report from The Washington Post, a former Blizzard employee says the matter “feels incredibly bad all over.”
After Activision Blizzard requested a stay in the discrimination case brought against it by the state of California, the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has filed its response. Activision Blizzard’s request for a stay asserts that lawyers with the DFEH engaged in misconduct arising from a conflict…
Recent Posts
- Lenovo is going all out with yet another funky laptop design: this time, it’s a business notebook with a foldable OLED screen
- Elon Musk’s first month of destroying America will cost us decades
- Fortnite’s new season leans heavily on heist mechanics
- I installed iOS 18.4 dev beta and the big Siri intelligence update is nowhere to be found
- Apple’s News app is getting a recipes section
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