JANETTE L. WIPPER, Chief Counsel, (#275264)
`SUE J. NOH, Assistant Chief Counsel, (#192134)
`RUMDUOL VUONG, Associate Chief Counsel, (#264392)
`320 W. 4th Street, Suite #1000
`Los Angeles, CA 90013
`Telephone: (213) 439-6799
`Facsimile:
`(888) 382-5293
`
`©Rl©lNAL
`
`Fin-LED
`Sugertcr Court of California
`°UnW of Los Angeles
`
`JUL 2 0 2021
`,
`.
`_
`Shem R. Carter. Executive Officer/Clerk oi Court
`Bil—w DepU‘V
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff,
`Department of Fair Employment and Housing
`
`(Fee Exempt, Gov. Code, § 6103)
`
`IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND ) Case No.
`
`2 1 s T CV 2 6 5 7 1
`
`Dept:
`
`)
`HOUSING, an agency ofthe State ofCalifornia,
`Plaintiffg Hon.
`) CIVIL RIGHTS AND EQUAL PAY ACT
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
`MONETARY RELIEF AND DAMAGES
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`i
`
`vs.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC., and ACTIVISION
`PUBLISHING, INC, and DOES ONE through
`TEN, Incluswe,
`
`Defendants. )
`)
`
`Plaintiff, DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING (“DFEH”), an
`
`agency of the State of California, brings this action in its own name to remedy violations ofthe
`
`California Fair Employment and Housing Act, Government Code section 12900 et seq. (“FEHA”) as
`
`well as the California Equal Pay Act, Labor Code section 1 197.5. by Defendant Activision Blizzard,
`
`Inc. (“Activision Blizzard”), Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. ( “Blizzard”), and Activision Publishing,
`
`Inc. (“Activision Publishing”) and Does One through Ten (collectively referred to as “Defendants”).
`/ / /
`'
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`/ / /
`
`'
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et a1.
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`"w:
`
`

`

`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Headquartered in California since the 19705 — where the nation’s strongest anti-
`
`harassment, equal pay and other equal employment opportunity protections exist for employees‘ —
`
`Defendants should be a safe—haven workplace in the video gaming industry. Sexism has plagued the
`
`male-dominated gaming industry for decades, and increasingly so in recent years.2 Women and girls
`
`now make up almost half of gamers in America, but the gaming industry continues to cater to men,
`
`even in California. Activision Blizzard’s double-digit percentage growth, ten-figure annual
`
`revenues, and recent diversity marketing campaigns have unfortunately changed little. Defendants’
`
`compliance with California’s broad workplace protections is long overdue. To enforce such
`
`compliance, DFEH brings this government enforcement action seeking to remedy, prevent and deter
`
`Defendants’ violations ofthe state’s civil rights and equal pay laws to vindicate the rights of
`
`Defendants’ female employees and the public interest ofthe State of California.
`
`2.
`
`Activision Blizzard, Inc. is headquartered in Santa Monica, California. It is one of
`
`the largest American video game developers and distributors with approximately 9,500 employees
`
`and over 100 million players worldwide.
`
`It is considered a leading gaming platform in the western
`
`1(See, e.g., State Dept. ofHealth Services v. SupCt. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1026, 1040 [FEHA provides
`broader protection than Title V11]; Introduction, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Trial Claims and Def.
`Ch. l3(I.1)-A [“Title Vll presents serious limitations on plaintiff‘s recovery, including a cap on
`emotional distress and punitive damages. In addition, FEHA provides broader protections in a
`number of important respects... For these reasons, it is generally advantageous to sue under FEHA,
`rather than Title VII.”]; Zhou, Can California Prevent Wage Discrimination Against Women? (Oct.
`7, 2015) The Atlantic <https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/10/california—gender-
`wage-gap-fair-pay-act/409549/> [as ofJuly 19, 2021].)
`
`2(Wingfield, Feminist Critics of Video Games Facing Threats in ‘Gamergate ’ Campaign, N.Y.
`Times (Oct. 15, 2014) <https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/technology/gamergate-women-video-
`game-threats-anita-sarkeesian.html> [as of July 19, 2021]; Dockterman, What Is #GamerGate and
`Why Are Women Being Threatened About Video Games? Time (Oct. 16, 2014)
`<https://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/> [as of July 19, 2021]; Lorenz & Browning, Dozens of
`Women in Gaming Speak Out About Sexism and Harassment, N.Y. Times (June 23, 2020)
`<https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/23/style/women-gaming-streaming-harassment-sexism-
`twitch.html> [as ofJuly 19, 2021]; Holden et. al., The #E-Too Movement: Fighting Back Against
`Sexual Harassment in Electronic Sports, (2020) 52 Ariz. St. L.J. 1, l.)
`
`
`
` Dept. Fair Empl. & Haus. v. Activision Blizzard, et al.
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`'14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`world, and it is a member of the Fortune 500 and S&P 500. Activision Blizzard conducts business
`
`through its subsidiaries, Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., King Digital Entertainment, and Activision
`
`Publishing, Inc., among others. Activision Blizzard also operates global esports organizations,
`
`Overwatch League and Call of Duty League. The video game franchise Call of Duty is Activision
`
`Publishing’s key product. Blizzard Entertainment maintains the online gaming service, Battle.net,
`
`and includes key franchises such as World of Warcraft, Diablo, and Overwatch.
`
`3.
`
`Unlike its customer-base of increasingly diverse players, Defendants’ workforce is
`
`only about 20 percent women. Its top leadership is also exclusively male and white. The CEO and
`
`President roles are now — and have always been — held by white men.3 Very few women ever reach
`top roles at the company. The women who do reach higher roles earn less salary, incentive pay and
`
`total compensation than their male peers, as evidenced in Defendants’ own records.4 Similar
`
`3 <https://www.activisionblizzard.com/who-we-are> [as ofJuly 19, 2021]; Fahs, The History of
`Activision (Oct. 1, 2010, updated Mar. 21, 2020) <https://www.ign.c0m/articles/20l0/10/01/the-
`history-of-activision>
`4 Activision Blizzard, (June 14, 2021, amended from April 30, 2021), 2021 Proxy Statement at p. 88
`<https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/718877/0001308l7921000289/latvi2021_defr14a.htm>
`[as ofJuly 19, 2021]
`S UMJWARY COMPENSATION TABLE
`The table below presents information with respect to each ofour named executive officers regarding compensation earned during the periods indicated.
`
`Name and Principal
`Position
`
`Robert Kotick
`Chief Executive Officer
`
`Dennis Durkin“)
`Executive Advisor and
`Former Chief Financial Officer
`
`Daniel Alegrea’
`President and
`
`Chief Operating Officer
`
`Claudine Naughton
`Chief People Officer
`
`Chris B, Walther
`
`Year
`
`2020
`
`2019
`
`2018
`
`2020
`
`2019
`
`2018
`
`2020
`
`2020
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`,
`
`_
`
`‘
`
`Salary
`($)
`
`1,494,231
`
`1,756,731 ~
`
`1,756,731
`
`906,923
`
`901:731
`
`624,808
`
`1,002,115
`
`655,000
`
`250,000
`
`852,205
`
`Total
`(5%)
`
`154,613,318
`
`30,122,896
`
`30,841,004
`
`12,999,754
`
`9,511,753
`
`928,025
`
`12,599,837
`
`3,823,519
`
`4,388,854
`
`3,270,992
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et al.
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`

`

`disparities exist throughout the company.5
`
`4.
`
`Like the executive ranks, women across the company are assigned to lower paid and
`
`lower opportunity levels. Female employees receive lower starting pay and also earn less than male
`
`employees for substantially similar work. Defendants promote women more slowly and terminate
`
`them more quickly than their male counterparts. Faced with such adverse terms and conditions of
`
`employment, many women have been forced to leave the company.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants have also fostered a pervasive “frat boy” workplace culture that
`
`continues to thrive. In the office, women are subjected to “cube crawls” in which male employees
`
`drink copious amounts of alcohol as they “crawl” their way through various cubicles in the office
`
`and often engage in inappropriate behavior toward female employees. Male employees proudly
`
`come into work hungover, play video games for long periods of time during work while delegating
`
`their responsibilities to female employees, engage in banter about their sexual encounters, talk
`
`openly about female bodies, and joke about rape.
`
`6.
`
`Unsurprisingly, Defendants’ “frat boy” culture is a breeding ground for harassment
`
`and discrimination against women. Female employees are subjected to constant sexual harassment,
`
`including having to continually fend off unwanted sexual comments and advances by their male co—
`
`workers and supervisors and being groped at the “cube crawls” and other company events. High—
`
`ranking executives and creators engaged in blatant sexual harassment without repercussions.
`
`In a
`
`particularly tragic example, a female employee committed suicide during a business trip with a male
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20‘
`
`21
`
`Chief Legal Officer
`
`20l9
`
`2018
`
`836,381
`
`759,238
`
`5,160,99]
`
`4,763,158
`
`so
`
`I‘m—.7
`7:32?
`
`F‘s-J
`92:2
`[mi
`in"1'
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`5 (See, e.g., Schreier, Blizzard Workers Share Salaries in Revolt Over Pay, Bloomberg (August 6, 2020)
`<https://'www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-03/blizzard-workers-share-salaries-in-revolt-
`over-wage-disparities> [as of July 19, 2021]; Gonzalez, Blizzard and Overwatch Continue to Fail
`Black Women (Nov. 2, 2020) <https://www.hotspawn.com/overwatch/news/b]izzard—and-overwatch-
`continue-to-fail-black-women> [as of July 19, 2021]; see also Kolakowski, Activision Blizzard
`Faces Diversity Hiring Controversy (Jan. 28, 2021)
`<https://insights.dice.com/2021/01/28/activision-blizzard-faces-diversity-hiring-controversy/> [as of
`July 19, 2021]; Ex-Blizzard employee says he left due to “racial abuse and discrimination,
`<https://www.pcgamesn.com/blizzard-racial-discrimination> [as of July 19, 2021]
`-4-
`
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et a].
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`

`

`AWN
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`supervisor who had brought butt plugs and lubricant with him on the trip. Defendants continuously
`
`condone the quid pro quo and hostile work environment. The message is not lost on their employees.
`
`7.
`
`Numerous complaints about unlawful harassment, discrimination, and retaliation
`
`were made to Defendants’ human resources personnel and executives, including to Blizzard
`
`Entertainment’s President J. Allen Brack. But, Defendants failed to take effective remedial
`
`measures in response to these complaints. Employees were further discouraged from complaining
`
`as human resource personnel were known to be close to alleged harassers. An internal investigation
`
`into the human resource unit noted that there was a “big lack of trust” and that “HR not held in high
`
`regard.” Unsurprisingly, employee’s complaints were treated in a perfunctory and dismissive
`
`manner and not kept confidential. As a result of these complaints, female employees were subjected
`
`to retaliatibn, including but not limited to being deprived ofwork on projects, unwillingly
`
`transferred to different units, and selected for layoffs.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff DFEH, an agency ofthe State of California, brings this enforcement action
`
`against Defendants in its prosecutorial role, seeking relief in the public interest for the state and for
`
`Defendants’ female employees (“the Group”). Pursuant to the authority vested in DFEH under
`
`FEHA, Government Code section 12900 et seq. and related laws, DFEH’s enforcement action seeks
`
`to remedy, prevent, and deter unlawful harassment, retaliation, and discrimination. Specifically, the
`
`violations pled herein include claims for sex discrimination in terms and condition of employment
`
`(including compensation, assignment, promotion, constructive discharge, termination); unlawful
`
`sexual harassment; retaliation; failure to prevent discrimination, harassment, and retaliation; and
`
`unequal pay.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) is a state agency
`
`tasked with investigating and prosecuting civil rights actions. (Gov. Code, § 12930, subd. (9(1)-
`
`(5).) California’s legislature exercised its police power in enacting FEHA and investing authority in
`
`DFEH “to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold
`
`employment without discrimination...” (Gov. Code, § 12920; Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Cathy ’s
`
`Creations, Inc. (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 404, 410 [“the DFEH’S task is to represent the interests ofthe
`-5-
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et a].
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`

`

`UIAMN
`\OMQGN
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`state and to effectuate the declared public policy of the state to protect and safeguard the rights and
`
`opportunities of all persons form unlawful discrimination.”].) As set forth in Government Code
`
`section 12900 et seq., DFEH is charged with enforcing FEHA, including initiating and investigating
`
`complaints on behalf of itself and persons alleged to be aggrieved by discriminatory employment
`
`practices. (Gov. Code, §§ 12930, 12961.) DFEH is additionally authorized to investigate and
`
`prosecute claims under Labor Code section 1197.5, which prohibits employers from paying
`
`employees of one sex less for substantially similar work. (Gov. Code, § 12930, subd. (f)(5).) At
`
`DFEH’s discretion, DFEH may bring a civil action in the name of the department on behalf of a
`
`group or class of persons adversely affected, in a similar manner, by an unlawful practice.‘ (Gov.
`
`Code, §12965.) “‘The DFEH acts as a public prosecutor when it pursues civil litigation under the
`
`FEHA (State Personnel Bd. v. Fair Empl. & Hous. Com. (1985) 39 Cal.3d 422, 444), and it may
`(KC
`
`seek remedies to
`
`vindicate’ what it considers to be in ‘the public interest in preventing
`
`discrimination” (Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Law Sch. Admission Council, Inc. (2013) 941
`
`F.Supp.2d 1159, 1172). (Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Superior Ct. ofKern Cty. (2020) 54
`
`Cal.App.5th 356, 373.)
`
`10.
`
`Defendant Activision Blizzard, Inc., (“Activision Blizzard”) is now and was, at all
`
`times relevant to this complaint, a Delaware corporation operating in and under the laws of the State
`
`of California and conducting business in Los Angeles, California. Activision Blizzard’s corporate
`
`headquarters are located in Santa Monica, California. Activision Blizzard conducts business
`
`through its subsidiaries, Defendants Blizzard Entertainment, Inc. (“Blizzard Entertainment”) and
`
`Activision Publishing, Inc. (“Activision Publishing”). As indicated by its 2021 Form '10-K, Blizzard
`
`Entertainment, Inc., and Activision Blizzard, Inc., along with King Digital Entertainment, fall within
`
`the three organizations overseen by Activision Blizzard and constitute two of the “three reportable
`
`segments” to Activision Blizzard. At all times relevant to this complaint, Activision Blizzard was an
`
`“employer” subject to FEHA and all other applicable statutes.
`
`11.
`
`Defendant Blizzard Entertainment, Inc., (“Blizzard Entertainment”) is now and was,
`
`at all times relevant to this complaint, a Delaware corporation operating in and under the laws of the
`
`State of California and conducting business in Los Angeles, California. Blizzard Entertainment is a
`
`-6-
`
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v, Activision Blizzard, et al.
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`

`

`subsidiary of Activision Blizzard and has its corporate headquarters at 1 Blizzard Way, Irvine, CA
`
`92618. DFEH is informed that Blizzard Entertainment conducts business in Burbank and Santa
`
`Monica, California where employees work. At all times relevant to this complaint, Blizzard
`
`Entertainment, Inc., was an “employer” subject to FEHA and all other applicable statutes.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant Activision Publishing, Inc., (“Activision Publishing”) is now and was, at
`
`all times relevant to this complaint, a Delaware corporation operating in and under the laws of the
`
`State of California and conducting business in Los Angeles, California. Activision Publishing’s
`
`corporate headquarters are located in Santa Monica, California. At all times relevant to this
`
`complaint, Activision Publishing was an “employer” subject to FBI-IA and all other applicable
`
`statutes.
`
`.
`
`13.
`
`Defendants DOES ONE through TEN, inclusive, are sued herein pursuant to Code of
`
`Civil Procedure section 474. DFEH is ignorant of the true names or capacities of the defendants
`
`sued herein under the fictitious names DOES ONE through TEN, inclusive. DFEH will amend this
`
`complaint to allege their true names and capacities when the same are ascertained. DFEH is
`
`informed, believes, and alleges, that each ofthe fictitiously named defendants is legally responsible
`
`for the occurrences, injuries, and damages alleged herein.
`
`14.
`
`DFEH is informed, believes, and alleges that at all relevant times, each defendant is
`
`and was, the director, agent, employee, and/or representative of every other defendant and acted
`
`within the course and scope of their agency, service, employment, and/or representation, and that
`
`each defendant herein is jointly and severally responsible and liable to the Group for the damages
`
`hereinafter alleged. At all relevant times, there existed a unity of ownership and interest between or
`
`among two or more of the Defendants such that any individuality and separateness between or
`
`among those Defendants has ceased, and Defendants are the alter egos of one another. Defendants
`
`exercised domination and control over one another to such an extent that any individuality or
`
`separateness of Defendants does not, and at all times herein mentioned did not, exist. All of the acts
`
`and failures to act alleged herein were duly performed by and attributed to all Defendants, each
`
`acting as the joint employer as Defendants jointly supervised and controlled employee’s conditions
`
`of employment, determined rate of pay or method of payment, had authority to hire or fire
`
`A
`
`\OwQONUI
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et al.
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`employees, and maintained employment records. All actions of all Defendants were taken by
`
`employees, supervisors, executives, officers, and directors during employment with all Defendants,
`
`”were taken on behalf of all Defendants, and were engaged in, authorized, ratified, and approved of
`
`by all other Defendants.
`
`PROCEDURAL HISTORY, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`15.
`
`16.
`
`DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Venue is proper in the County of Los Angeles under Government Code section
`
`12965,’ subdivision (a) as the unlawful practices complained of in this complaint occurred in the
`
`County ofLos Angeles.
`
`17.
`
`DFEH’s director, in his or her discretion, may file a complaint on behalf of a group or
`
`class. (Gov. Code, § 12961; Cal. Code Regs, tit. 2, §§ 10012 and 10013.) Pursuant to this
`
`authority, DFEH Director Kevin Kish (“DPEH Director”) filed and served a complaint of Group or
`
`Systemic Investigation and Director’s Complaint for Group/Class Relief against Blizzard
`
`Entertainment, Inc. on October 12, 2018, (DFEH Case No. 201810-03875512). On October 29,
`
`2018, an Amended Director’s Complaint was filed and served to add Activision Blizzard, Inc. On
`
`December 7, 2018, a Second Amended Director’s Complaint was filed and served to add Activision
`
`Publishing, Inc. (collectively, referred as “Director’s Complaints”.) The Director’s Complaints
`
`alleged that Defendants engaged in discrimination against their employees on the basis of sex-
`
`gender, including failing to hire, select, or employ persons because oftheir sex, as well as
`
`discriminating in compensation or in the terms, conditions, privileges of employment due to their
`
`sex. The Director’s Complaints further alleged that Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to
`
`prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation.
`
`18.
`
`After more than two-years of investigation, DFEH issued a cause finding on June 24,
`
`2021.
`
`In the course of DFEH’s investigation, DFEH found evidence that Defendants discriminated
`
`against female- employees in terms and conditions of employment, including compensation,
`
`-
`
`assignment, promotion, termination, constructive discharge, and retaliation. DFEH’s investigation
`
`also found that female employees were subject to sexual harassment. DFEH’s investigation found
`
`that Defendants failed to take all reasonable steps to prevent unlawful discrimination, harassment, or
`-8—
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et a].
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`
`
`JR
`
`\OWQQUI
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`l3
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`retaliation. Lastly, DFEH’s investigation further found that Defendants had committee violations of
`
`Labor Code section 1197.5 in paying female employee less than their male counterparts for
`
`substantially similar work. These claims are alleged and/or reasonably related to and like the claims
`
`originally alleged in the Director’s Complaints.
`
`19.
`
`DFEH attempted to resolve this matter without litigation. Prior to filing this civil
`
`action, the DFEH required all parties to participate in mandatory dispute resolution in the
`
`department’s internal dispute resolution division free of charge to the parties 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.
`
`20.
`
`In the case of failure to eliminate an unlawful practice through conference,
`
`conciliation, mediation, or persuasion, or in advance thereof if circumstances warrant, the DFEH
`
`may bring a civil action in the name ofthe department in state and federal courts. (Gov. Code, §§
`
`12930, subd. (h) and 12965, subd. (a).)
`
`21.
`
`All administrative procedures precedent to the institution of this lawsuit have been
`
`fulfilled.
`
`22.
`
`By operation ofa signed agreement between the parties, DFEH’s deadline to file a
`
`civil complaint is July 21, 2021. DFEH filed its complaint prior to the deadline ofJuly 21, 2021.
`
`23.
`
`The amount of damages. sought by this complaint exceeds the minimum jurisdictional
`
`limits of this Court.
`
`GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT ACTION ALLEGATION S
`
`24.
`
`DFEH brings this government enforcement action for group relief on behalf of itself
`
`in the public interest and all aggrieved female employees (the “Group”) pursuant to Government
`
`Code sections 1296] and 12965.
`
`25.
`
`DFEH’s authority to seek relief on behalf of itself in the public interest and the Group
`
`stems from a delegation of the power by the Legislature, authorizing DFEH to initiate a complaint
`
`itself, investigate claims, and prosecute such claims under FEHA. (see, e.g., Gov. Code, §§ 12920,
`
`12920.5, 12930, 12961, and 12965.) Section 12961 expressly authorizes the DFEH Director to file a
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et a].
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`A
`
`\DQQQUI
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`2s
`
`

`

`complaint on behalf of the department seeking relief for a group of persons adversely affected, in a
`
`similar manner, by an alleged unlawful practice. “Any complaint so filed may be investigated as a
`
`group or class complaint, and, if in the judgment of the director circumstances warrant, shall be
`
`treated as such for purposes of conciliation, dispute resolution, and civil action.” (Gov. Code, §§
`
`12961 and 12965, subd. (a), italics added.)
`
`26.
`
`Pursuant to such statutory authorities, DFEH’s Director filed and gave notice to
`
`Defendants that this was a group or class complaint for purposes of investigation, mediation, and
`
`\
`
`civil action. DFEH investigated and attempted to mediate the group or class complaint with
`
`Defendants and, after a failure to eliminate the unlawful practices through mediation, or in advance
`
`thereof if circumstances warrant, the DFEH filed this civil action seeking to remedy the group or
`
`class violations in this Court. (Gov. Code, §§ 12930, subd. (h), 12961, 12965, subd. (a).)
`
`27.
`
`DFEH brought this government enforcement action in its own name pursuant to
`
`express statutory authority from the Legislature. (Gov. Code, § 12900 et seq.; Cal Const., Art 111, §
`
`3.) The Legislature authorized DFEH to proceed on a group or class basis in a civil action. (Gov.
`
`Code, §§ 12961 and 12965, subd. (a).)
`
`28.
`
`DFEH’s government enforcement action seeks to remedy, prevent, and deter the
`
`pattern or practice of unlawful discrimination and other violations, disparate impact of
`
`discrimination, and continuing violations that Defendants engaged in against aggrieved female
`
`employees.
`
`29.
`
`DFEH brings this representative enforcement action in its capacity as a state agency
`
`and the authority vested in DFEH by FEHA, which does not require class certification under Code
`
`of Civil Procedure sections 378 and 382. (People v. Pacific Land Res. Co. (1977) 20 Cal.3d 10, 17
`
`[“[a]n action filed by the People seeking injunctive reliefand civil penalties is fundamentally a law
`
`enforcement action designed to protect the public and not to benefit private parties” and that in such
`
`cases the seeking of monetary remedies was “not the primary object of the suit, as it is in most
`
`private class actions.”]; Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Law School Admission Council, Inc., supra,
`
`941 F.Supp.2d at 1168-1170 [holding that DFEH action is not subject to class certification
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`requirements under Rule 23 ofFederal Rules of Civil Procedure as “nothing in § 1296] requires that
`
`
`-10-
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et a].
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`

`

`the complaint be filed as a class action.”]; Washington v. Chimei Innolux Corp. (9th Cir. 201 l) 659
`
`F.3d 842, 848 [“class actions are always representative actions, but representative actions are not
`
`necessarily class actions.”].) Thus, DFEH is exempt from class action certification.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`30.
`
`DFEH incorporates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set forth herein.
`
`Sex Discrimination: Pay_, Assignment, Promotion, Termination,
`
`and Constructive Discharge
`
`31.
`
`Defendants have engaged in and continue to perpetuate discriminatory practices
`
`regarding pay, assignment, promotion and other terms and conditions of employment which
`
`negatively affect and impact female employees.
`
`32.
`
`These discriminatory practices began at hire when women were offered lower
`
`compensation and less lucrative job assignments and opportunities than their male counterparts.
`Defendants paid female employees significantly less in starting pay then their male counterparts at
`
`hire. This pattern or practice and violations were continuing.
`
`33.
`
`The pay disparity continued throughout employment for femaleemployees.
`
`Defendants paid female employees significantly less than their male counterparts after hire. This
`
`pattern or practice and violations were continuing.
`
`34.
`
`Women were also afforded less stock and incentive pay opportunities. Female
`
`employees were overwhelming assigned into lower grades/levels without stock and incentive pay
`
`opportunities or less opportunities. Female employees also received less stock and incentive
`
`compensation than male employees. This pattern or practice and violations were continuing.
`
`35.
`
`Women were steered into the lower levels of Defendants’ hierarchy and often had to
`
`work harder and longer to earn equal promotional and other opportunities as their male counterparts.
`
`As an example, a female employee working for Blizzard Entertainment was assigned to a lower
`
`level role, denied equal pay, and subsequently sought a promotion because she had been carrying out
`
`duties exceeding herjob description. She was repeatedly told it was not her turn and others
`
`deserved a promotion ahead of her. Ultimately, the employee was promoted after three years while
`
`her male counterpart was promoted within a year of his hire despite having started several months
`
`
`
`-11— ,
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et a].
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`1 2 3 4
`
`\OWQQUI
`
`10
`
`ll
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`a;
`a?3‘~.
`
`w I
`
`»?
`[~24
`
`

`

`£MN
`\Dmflc‘xm
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`after her. Her male counterpart was also assigned leadership responsibilities which she was not
`
`afforded, responsibilities which furthered the male employee’s ability to get promoted.
`
`36.
`
`In another example, a female employee who worked at Blizzard Entertainment was
`
`assigned to a lower level, denied equal pay, and passed over for a promotion despite multiple factors
`
`that suggested she earned it: (1) highly rated performance reviews; (2) she generated significantly
`
`more revenue in her marketing campaigns than her male counterpart; and (3) she ran almost twice as
`
`many campaigns as her male counterpart. Despite her accomplishments, her male counterpart was
`
`invited to have monthly or weekly one-on-one meetings with the Vice President. She was not
`
`afforded these same opportunities and unsurprisingly was passed over for a promotion in favor of
`
`her male counterpart.
`
`37.
`
`Similarly, other female employees at Blizzard Entertainment were assigned to lower
`
`level roles, denied equal pay and further delayed or passed over for promotions in favor of male
`
`counterparts who lacked the same experience or qualifications but who were friends with the male
`
`head of the unit. A newly promoted male supervisor delegated his responsibilities to his now female
`
`subordinates in favor of playing Call ofDuty. Other male supervisors would refuse to communicate
`
`with female employees, going to their male counterparts for information.
`38.
`Female employees at Activision Publishing were also assigned to lower level roles,
`
`denied equal pay, and delayed or passed over for promotions oftheir male counterparts. As an
`
`example, a female human resources employee at Activision Publishing was delayed and passed over
`
`for a promotion despite receiving positive performance reviews, doing substantial more work than
`
`her male counterpart, and taking over the actual responsibilities of the departing person. Female
`
`accounting employees at Activision Publishing, likewise, note that male counterparts were paid
`
`significantly more than them despite doing the same or less work and having less responsibilities.
`
`39.
`
`Female employees were also not promoted because of Defendants’ discriminatory
`
`practices against pregnant female employees. A female employee working on one game team had
`
`assumed some of the responsibilities of a manager but when she asked her male supervisor about
`
`being fairly paid for the work she was actually doing and promoted into that position, the manager
`
`commented that they could not risk promoting her as she might get pregnant and like being a mom
`
`-12-
`
`
`Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Activision Blizzard, et al.
`Civil Rights and Equal Pay Complaint for Injunctive and Monetary Relief, and Damages
`
`

`

`too much. In general, female employees were further treated negatively due to their pregnancies.
`
`Supervisors ignored medical restrictions given to female employees and gave them negative
`
`evaluations while they were out on maternity leave. Other female employees reported that they
`
`were criticized for leaving to pick up their children from daycare while their male counterparts were
`
`playing video games and female employees were kicked out of lactation rooms so employees could
`
`use the room for meetings.
`
`40.
`
`Women of color were particularly vulnerable targets of Defendants’ discriminatory
`
`practices. An African American employee noted that it took her two years to be made into a
`
`permanent employee while men hired after her were made permanent employees. She also was
`
`micromanaged such that her male coworkers were known to be