`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lisa Bloom, Esq. (SBN 158458)
`Alan Goldstein, Esq. (SBN 296430)
`Devin Meepos, Esq. (SBN 303283)
`THE BLOOM FIRM
`26565 Agoura Road, Suite 200
`Calabasas, CA 91302
`Telephone: (818) 914-7319
`Facsimile: (818) 884-8079
`Lisa@TheBloomFirm.com
`Avi@TheBloomFirm.com
`Devin@TheBloomFirm.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, JANE DOE
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`
`
`
`
`JANE DOE, an individual,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.,
`a California corporation;
`BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
`a California corporation;
`MARK SKORUPA, an individual;
`DEREK INGALLS, an individual;
`BENJAMIN “BEN” KILGORE, an
`individual; SONAL PATEL, an individual;
`DANNY NGUYEN, an individual; and
`DOES 1 through 25, inclusive.
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`______________________________________
`
`CASE NO.:
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1. Sexual Harassment – Hostile Work
`Environment in Violation of FEHA
`2. Sexual Harassment – Quid Pro Quo in
`Violation of FEHA
`3. Failure to Prevent Harassment in
`Violation of FEHA
`4. Sexual Favoritism in Violation of FEHA
`5. Retaliation in Violation of FEHA
`6. Sexual Battery
`7. Intentional Infliction of Emotional
`Distress
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`1
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 03/23/2022 11:37 AM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by H. Flores-Hernandez,Deputy Clerk
`
`Assigned for all purposes to: Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Judicial Officer: Armen Tamzarian
`
`22STCV10064
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff JANE DOE (“Ms. Doe” or “Plaintiff”) brings the instant action against
`
`Defendants ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
`
`(“collectively ACTIVISION BLIZZARD”), MARK SKORUPA, DEREK INGALLS,
`
`BENJAMIN “BEN” KILGORE, SONAL PATEL, DANNY NGUYEN, and DOES 1 through
`
`25 (all Defendants and Does 1-25 shall be referred collectively herein as “Defendants”), and
`
`alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD is a massive video game company1 with a massive
`
`sexual harassment problem. For years, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’s open “frat boy”
`
`environment fostered rampant sexism, harassment and discrimination with 700 reported
`
`incidents occurring under CEO Robert Kotick’s watch.2 Examples include excessive workplace
`
`drinking which fostered unwanted sexual advances to female employees, banter about male
`
`employees’ sexual encounters, rape jokes, and groping of female employees’ breasts and
`
`bodies. The sexual misconduct was often committed by executives and in the presence of HR.
`
`2. In September 2018, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission
`
`(“EEOC”) launched an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment at ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD. As a result of the widespread sexual harassment and discrimination tolerated at the
`
`highest levels of the company, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD agreed to create an $18 million fund
`
`to compensate eligible claimants who suffered from “sexual harassment, pregnancy
`
`discrimination and related retaliation” at ACTIVISION BLIZZARD. To date, the fund has yet
`
`to hear a single claim and not a dime has been distributed. Many sexual harassment victims of
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD have yet to obtain justice.
`
`///
`
`
`1 In January 2022, Microsoft Corporation announced plans to acquire Activision Blizzard, Inc. for
`$68.7 billion.
`
`2 CEO Kotick remains one of the highest earning CEOs. Since 2007, he earned $461 million. In 2020
`alone, his pay package hit more than $150 million as the company continued to lay off employees
`during the pandemic. After the Microsoft acquisition finalizes, he will earn nearly $400 million.
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`2
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. In July 2021, the California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (“DFEH”)
`
`filed a lawsuit against ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, alleging a pattern of workplace harassment
`
`and discrimination. The DFEH accused ACTIVISION BLIZZARD of, among other things, 1)
`
`fostering a pervasive “frat-boy” workplace culture that is a breeding ground for harassment and
`
`discrimination against women, 2) illegally withholding and suppressing evidence by shredding
`
`documents that it requested for its investigation, and 3) obtaining repressive, if not punitive,
`
`secret settlements of sexual harassment claims, non-disclosure agreements and non-
`
`disparagement agreements with severe penalties against employees.
`
`4. As reported in a November 16, 2021, article in the The Wall Street Journal, 3 CEO
`
`Robert Kotick knew about allegations of employee misconduct in many parts of the company,
`
`including a rape of an employee in 2016 or 2017. Yet he played down many of the allegations
`
`of misconduct. The article further reports that after ACTIVISION BLIZZARD reached an out-
`
`of-court settlement with the rape victim, CEO Kotick did not inform the company’s board of
`
`directors about the rape or the settlement. Many shareholders and employees have called for
`
`CEO Kotick’s resignation. The SEC recently launched a wide-ranging investigation into
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, including how it handled employees’ allegations of sexual
`
`misconduct and workplace discrimination.
`
`5. On October 28, 2021, following the DFEH lawsuit, CEO Kotick acknowledged the
`
`company’s failure to protect its many sexual harassment victims, writing in a letter to all
`
`employees: “The guardrails weren’t in place everywhere to ensure that [ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD’s] values were being upheld.” In this letter, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD announced
`
`one of its new policies to show respect to sexual harassment victims: the company would no
`
`longer require arbitration of sexual harassment and discrimination claims.
`
`6. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’s failure to curb sexist and harassing conduct emboldened
`
`its leadership and others to touch Ms. Doe’s breasts, thighs and other body parts, to comment on
`
`
`3 https://www.wsj.com/articles/activision-videogames-bobby-kotick-sexual-misconduct-allegations-
`11637075680
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`3
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`her breasts, to invite her to a swinger party, to attempt to kiss her and to make numerous
`
`sexualized comments to her. After Ms. Doe complained to ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’s HR on
`
`multiple occasions, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD retaliated against her by demoting her, by
`
`declining her applications for positions in other departments later offered to less-deserving
`
`employees, and by sending around a false email that she had been terminated.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7. Plaintiff is an individual residing in the County of Riverside, California.
`
`8. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD, INC. is a California corporation doing substantial business in the County of Los
`
`Angeles, State of California. In addition, at least one of the disputes in the instant action arose in
`
`the County of Los Angeles. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC. employs more than five
`
`employees within the meaning of California Government Code § 12926 and are thus subject to
`
`suit under FEHA, Government Code section 12900, et seq.
`
`9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that Defendant BLIZZARD
`
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC. (“BLIZZARD”) is a California corporation doing substantial
`
`business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. In addition, at least one of the
`
`disputes in the instant action arose in the County of Los Angeles. BLIZZARD
`
`ENTERTAINMENT, INC. employs more than five employees within the meaning of California
`
`Government Code § 12926 and are thus subject to suit under FEHA, Government Code section
`
`12900, et seq.
`
`10. Defendant MARK SKORUPA is an individual. His current county of residence is
`
`currently unknown to Plaintiff.
`
`11. Defendant DEREK INGALLS is an individual. His current county of residence is
`
`currently unknown to Plaintiff.
`
`12. Defendant BENJAMIN “BEN” KILGORE is an individual. His current county of
`
`residence is currently unknown to Plaintiff.
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`4
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13. Defendant SONAL PATEL is an individual. Her current county of residence is
`
`currently unknown to Plaintiff.
`
`14. Defendant DANNY NGUYEN is an individual. His current county of residence is
`
`currently unknown to Plaintiff.
`
`15. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
`
`otherwise, of Defendants Does 1 through 25, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time.
`
`Plaintiff therefore sues said defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and
`
`capacities of said defendants are ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of court to amend this
`
`Complaint to allege their true names and capacities. Plaintiff is informed and believes and
`
`thereon alleges that each defendant designated herein as a Doe is responsible in some manner
`
`for each other defendant’s acts, omissions, and for the resulting injuries and damages to
`
`Plaintiff, as alleged herein.
`
`VENUE
`
`
`
`16. Venue is proper as Defendants conduct business in Los Angeles County. Plaintiff
`
`also provided services to ACTIVISION BLIZZARD in Los Angeles County and some of the
`
`tortious conduct alleged herein occurred in Los Angeles County.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`17. On October 23, 2017, Ms. Doe commenced work at ACTIVISION BLIZZARD as a
`
`Senior Administrative Assistant to support Defendant SKORUPA and Senior Director Eric Kou
`
`in ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’s IT department. Ms. Doe reported to Defendant PATEL (an
`
`Executive Administrative Assistant). She immediately began to experience harassment and
`
`gender discrimination, including but not limited to the incidents below.
`
`18. On Ms. Doe’s very first day, Defendant SKORUPA, Mr. Kou, Defendant PATEL,
`
`Defendant INGALLS and others from ACTIVISION BLIZZARD leadership took Ms. Doe out
`
`for an “initiation lunch” at a restaurant. During this lunch, leadership pressured Ms. Doe to
`
`drink many shots of tequila. And at this lunch, Defendant SKORUPA forced his hand on Ms.
`
`Doe’s lap. After lunch, they all headed to another place for more drinks and leadership
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`5
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`pressured Ms. Doe to drink even more. On the car ride back to the office, ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD leadership told Ms. Doe that, as part of the initiation, she needed to share an
`
`embarrassing secret to everyone. She complied and it made her extremely uncomfortable.
`
`19. On Ms. Doe’s second day of work, Defendant PATEL sent Ms. Doe and a
`
`prospective ACTIVISION BLIZZARD employee an email with a comment about “hookers and
`
`blow.”
`
`20. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD purchased alcohol for its employees to drink during work
`
`hours, offering it nearly everywhere, including kegs of beer throughout the offices and on
`
`campus. In this alcohol-sotted work environment, sexual harassment flourished. ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD often pressured Ms. Doe and others to participate in office “cube crawls” where
`
`women would be subjected to sexual comments and groped.
`
`21. Early in Ms. Doe’s career at ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, Defendant SKORUPA and
`
`Defendant INGALLS repeatedly pressured her to stay late in Defendant INGALLS’ office to
`
`play a game called “Jackbox” which required each individual to suggest creative answers to
`
`various questions. All the men present ensured that their answers were mostly sexual. At the
`
`start of one of the games, Defendant SKORUPA or Defendant INGALLS told Ms. Doe, “let’s
`
`see how well you’ll fit in with the group.” Ms. Doe understood that they were testing her to see
`
`if she could be as sexually crude as the men.
`
`22. On November 3, 2017, at BlizzCon (a popular convention held by ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD), Ms. Doe was instructed to meet the leadership group in the hotel bar after her
`
`shift was over. Defendant PATEL and Defendant SKORUPA pressured Ms. Doe to drink with
`
`the team, causing Ms. Doe to become intoxicated. Defendant SKORUPA gave Ms. Doe the key
`
`to his hotel room and said that he was not using it that night. Ms. Doe later left the bar and went
`
`to Defendant SKORUPA’s vacant hotel room to sleep. Since Blizzard pressured her to drink
`
`and caused her intoxication, Ms. Doe does not remember much else from that night other than
`
`waking up in the middle of the night in a state of shock as she was completely naked (something
`
`very unusual for her) and then driving home.
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`6
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`23. On December 11, 2017, Defendant PATEL told Ms. Doe that she and her boyfriend
`
`are polyamorous and that they had a lot of parties if Ms. Doe ever wanted to join. Ms. Doe
`
`declined Defendant PATEL’s invitation for casual sex.
`
`24. On March 6, 2018, Defendant SKORUPA came into Ms. Doe’s office and gave her
`
`a very long, unwelcomed hug and rubbed her back.
`
`25. Defendant SKORUPA often made sexual comments to Ms. Doe, such as
`
`commenting on the way that she dresses and how she physically looks.
`
`26. In June 2018, at an administrative appreciation outing at Disneyland, Defendant
`
`SKORUPA repeatedly put his arm around Ms. Doe and repeatedly linked arms with Ms. Doe to
`
`enable him to rub his arm on the side of her breasts. At lunch, Defendant SKORUPA
`
`commented to Ms. Doe, “Wow, you can fit that big burger in your mouth, impressive!” The
`
`sexual innuendo was unwelcomed. When someone jumped in and mentioned that he can get in
`
`trouble for that, the other ACTIVISION BLIZZARD employees there laughed.
`
`27. On July 18, 2018, Defendant SKORUPA drove with Ms. Doe ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD’s Burbank Arena in Burbank in a convertible. He told her that her breasts were
`
`going to get a nice tan. He said he wished that his wife kept herself up like Ms. Doe does.
`
`Defendant SKORUPA repeatedly linked his arms with Ms. Doe as they walked around the
`
`arena in order to brush up his arms against her breasts. Ms. Doe tried to distance herself from
`
`him.
`
`28. Later that day, at Defendant INGALLS’ dinner party, Defendant SKORUPA gave
`
`Ms. Doe another extended, unwelcomed hug. Later that evening, Defendant SKORUPA told her
`
`that Defendant KILGORE, BLIZZARD’s Chief Technology Officer, wants to “come take care
`
`of you after [her] Lasik [surgery].” Defendant KILGORE later came up behind her, put his arms
`
`around her waist and hugged her tightly from behind. When she turned around, he handed her
`
`his phone number and said to call him if she needed to be “taken care of.”
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`7
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`29. The following day, Ms. Doe complained to Defendant PATEL how uncomfortable
`
`she was about Defendant SKORUPA commenting on Defendant KILGORE wanting to come
`
`take care of her.
`
`30. Beginning on or around July 22, 2018, Ms. Doe started to dress more conservatively
`
`so that she would not get sexually harassed. And she tried to distance herself from the offsite
`
`leadership dinners. Ms. Doe told BLIZZARD’s IT Chief of Staff that she was not comfortable
`
`with all of the drinking and sexual advances.
`
`31. In early August 2018, BLIZZARD terminated Defendant KILGORE after several
`
`women made credible sexual assault allegations against him. On August 16, 2018,
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD held a meeting regarding Defendant KILGORE’s departure. During
`
`this team meeting, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD leadership took a photo of all the men flipping
`
`off the camera in response to Defendant KILGORE’s departure. Defendant INGALLS emailed
`
`this photo to leadership, including to Ms. Doe. This photo signaled to Ms. Doe that leadership
`
`thought Defendant KILGORE’s departure for sexual misconduct was a joke.
`
`32. In August 2018, despite a hiring freeze, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD rehired another
`
`employee as Defendant INGALLS’ Executive Assistant on account of her close relationship
`
`with Defendant INGALLS and Defendant SKORUPA. In doing so, she took Defendant
`
`SKORUPA’s calendar, previously assigned to Ms. Doe
`
`33. On August 23, 2018, Ms. Doe told Ms. Madison that she intended to go to
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HR with complaints of sexual harassment and complaints regarding
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’s removal of her from Defendant SKORUPA’s calendar. Ms.
`
`Madison said there was no need to go to HR.
`
`34. On August 29, 2018, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD retaliated against Ms. Doe by
`
`forcing her to move to a cubicle to make room for a new director. They were intending to
`
`remove a recruiter from her office as she only worked in the office two days a week, but they
`
`decided instead to remove Ms. Doe, who worked five days a week in the office, from her office
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`8
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`into a cubicle. This was illogical as Ms. Doe’s office was in between the offices of Defendant
`
`SKORUPA and Mr. Kou, her two assigned directors.
`
`35. That same day, Ms. Doe met with HR to complain that another employee was
`
`returning and would be taking Ms. Doe’s calendar.
`
`36. On August 30, 2018, Ms. Doe reported ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’s hostile work
`
`environment to HR, who dismissed Ms. Doe’s sexual misconduct complaints, saying that it was
`
`just her leadership being nice and trying to be friends with her. HR asked Ms. Doe to keep all of
`
`her issues, concerns, recordings, or emails to herself because they could be very damaging to
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD.
`
`37. Several days after Ms. Doe’s HR complaint, Defendant SKORUPA loudly
`
`pronounced to Defendant PATEL that he “fucking despise[s] [Ms. Doe],” “It’s like I broke up
`
`with her and now she’s the psycho ex-girlfriend” and “poor [Ms. Doe] isn’t getting all the
`
`attention and now she’s mad.” Defendant SKORUPA then said, “I wish I could be a total dick
`
`to [Ms. Doe] but I know I legally can’t.” Ms. Doe overheard all of the above comments as she
`
`was standing right outside his office.
`
`38. On September 7, 2018, Ms. Doe met again with HR to beg for another position at
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, such as the Web & Mobile position. HR said they were not
`
`backfilling the Web & Mobile position. On September 24, 2018, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD
`
`hired a new employee for that position.
`
`39. In September 2018, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD promoted Defendant PATEL and an
`
`employee similarly situated to Ms. Doe because they were in the clique, while it demoted Ms.
`
`Doe after she complained of sexual harassment.
`
`40. After another meeting that month, when Ms. Doe was walking out of a meeting
`
`room, Defendant INGALLS said, “I hope there are no more pussies in the room.”
`
`41. On October 3, 2018, Ms. Doe attended a large ACTIVISION BLIZZARD staff
`
`meeting after an executive’s departure, wherein Defendant INGALLS, now head of BLIZZARD
`
`IT, was asked why his former boss had left. Defendant INGALLS told a brief story that
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`9
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`concluded with the advice that employees shouldn’t sleep with their executive assistants and
`
`that if they did, they shouldn’t stop. He added that if they did stop, they better have deep
`
`pockets. In the room that day was a representative from human resources who stood silently by.
`
`42. On October 4, 2018, Ms. Doe complained to HR about Defendant SKORUPA’s
`
`sexual harassment. HR said that it was Defendant SKORUPA’s way of complimenting her and
`
`that she should stop saying that it is sexual harassment. She also reported Defendant INGALLS’
`
`comments about sleeping with one’s administrators and she played a recording of the
`
`comments. HR said to not let this get out because it could be very damaging and he would take
`
`care of it. He did not.
`
`43. On October 8, 2018, Defendant INGALLS and Defendant SKORUPA removed Ms.
`
`Doe’s access to their calendars. That Defendant PATEL still had access to everyone’s calendars
`
`even though she was not an administrator anymore indicated that Defendant INGALLS’ and
`
`Defendant SKORUPA’s removal of Ms. Doe’s access was retaliatory.
`
`44. In October 2018, Ms. Doe found an opening in Blizzard’s Classic Games department
`
`and applied for the position. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HR said that the feedback from the
`
`interview was great and that she needed to wait until the following week for the final results.
`
`That Friday, Defendant INGALLS and Defendant SKORUPA spoke with Rob Bridenbecker,
`
`former Executive Producer and Vice President of Classic Games. The following Monday,
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD hired a less-qualified receptionist. Ms. Doe complained about this
`
`retaliation to ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HR. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD HR warned her about
`
`jumping to conclusions. This employee was fired shortly after because she was not qualified for
`
`the position.
`
`45. Later on, a position in BLIZZARD’s Story & Franchise department opened up and
`
`Ms. Doe applied for and interviewed for that position. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD told her that
`
`it passed on her for that position too.
`
`46. On November 5, 2018, Ms. Doe noticed that she was removed from the
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD leadership offsite scheduled for November 9, while another
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`10
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`employee similarly situated to her was invited. Ms. Doe was also removed from all leadership
`
`meetings that she previously attended and she was the only one not to receive team swag. Ms.
`
`Doe complained about this blatant retaliation to HR.
`
`47. On November 12, 2018, Ms. Doe complained to HR about being isolated. HR
`
`acknowledged that leadership was retaliating against her and bullying her but it did not help her
`
`in any way.
`
`48. On November 16, 2018, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD sent out an invitation for the
`
`leadership holiday dinner at Defendant INGALLS’ home. Ms. Doe was not invited yet
`
`Defendant PATEL and an employee similarly situated to Ms. Doe were invited.
`
`49. On December 17, 2018, Ms. Doe provided accurate information about her toxic
`
`experiences at BLIZZARD to an investigator hired by ACTIVIION BLIZZARD. The next day,
`
`Ms. Doe asked HR if she could go on medical leave until the investigation was over due to her
`
`mental breakdown. HR said she would need to use the rest of her vacation time if she was not
`
`comfortable coming into the office. HR also said that if she was not happy, there was always the
`
`option to find a job outside of ACTIVISION BLIZZARD.
`
`50. On March 14, 2019 Ms. Doe complained in writing to BLIZZARD President J.
`
`Allen Brack about the sexual harassment and retaliation.
`
`
`
`51. On April 1, 2019, only after Ms. Doe complained to Mr. Brack did ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD offer her the Story & Franchise department position that it previously denied to her
`
`in order to shut her up. To escape the rampant sexism in the IT department, she accepted this
`
`demotion which came with a significant decrease in pay. Notably, since joining ACTIVISION
`
`BLIZZARD in 2017, Ms. Doe only received $1.54 in total hourly raises (excluding the holiday
`
`bonus that was rolled into her base salary). She was also expected to receive large profit-sharing
`
`payouts but those kept diminishing.
`
`
`
`52. On November 21, 2019, Defendant NGUYEN, BLIZZARD Senior IT manager,
`
`invited Ms. Doe to dinner when he told her that he heard Defendant INGALLS and Defendant
`
`SKORUPA talk about Ms. Doe in a sexually explicit manner. After dinner, Defendant
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`11
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NGUYEN attempted to kiss Ms. Doe as she got in her car. Ms. Doe quickly drove away in fear
`
`with her car door open, leaving Defendant NGUYEN in the street.
`
`53. In the Story & Franchise department, Ms. Doe’s manager often set her up to fail.
`
`Ms. Doe complained to ACTIVISION BLIZZARD about this.
`
`54. In December 2020, Ms. Doe received her first below-average review after receiving
`
`positive reviews in 2018 and 2019. Ms. Doe believes this was in retaliation for her prior sexual
`
`harassment complaints. This unwarranted negative 2020 review resulted in a lower salary
`
`increase (just a 36 cents raise), a loss of profit sharing and a loss of equity in the company.
`
`55. In November 2021, Ms. Doe interviewed for an open Executive Assistant position.
`
`On December 8, 2021, Ms. Doe spoke at a press conference about the sexual harassment,
`
`discrimination, and retaliation she has endured at ACTIVISION BLIZZARD. A week later, in
`
`retaliation, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD rejected her application. On December 17, 2021, Ms.
`
`Doe sent an e-mail requesting feedback about the interview. She received no response.
`
`56. To this day, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD has refused to promote Ms. Doe despite her
`
`exemplary work. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD also sent a preservation of evidence letter to some
`
`of its employees on January 10, 2022, falsely claiming that Ms. Doe was terminated.
`
`ACTIVISION BLIZZARD’s relentless efforts to push her out continued on February 1, 2022,
`
`when it hired two new temporary employees to perform the exact duties Ms. Doe performed.
`
`EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES
`
`57. On March 10, 2022, prior to the initiation of this lawsuit, Ms. Doe submitted to the
`
`California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) information regarding
`
`Defendants denying her a work environment free of discrimination, harassment and retaliation
`
`based on her gender and other protected characteristics.
`
`58. On March 10, 2022, the DFEH issued Ms. Doe a right-to-sue notice. See Exhibit A
`
`(redactions are applied to Ms. Doe’s true name).
`
`///
`
`///
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`12
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` LEGAL CLAIMS
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT - SEXUAL HARASSMENT (GOV. CODE § 12940)
`(AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)
`
`59. Plaintiff restates and incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the
`
`allegations contained in each of the paragraphs above.
`
`
`
`60. Plaintiff is an “applicant” and a “person providing services pursuant to a contract”
`
`under California Government Code § 12940(j).
`
`
`
`61. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT INC. and
`
`DOES 1-25 (collectively, “Corporate Defendants”) are “employers” and Defendant SKORUPA,
`
`Defendant INGALLS, Defendant KILGORE, Defendant PATEL and Defendant NGUYEN are
`
`each a “person” under California Government Code § 12940(j). Corporate Defendants,
`
`Defendant SKORUPA, Defendant INGALLS, Defendant KILGORE, Defendant PATEL and
`
`Defendant NGUYEN are collectively referred herein as “Defendants.”
`
`
`
`62. Plaintiff was subjected to unwanted harassing conduct on the basis of her gender in
`
`violation of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, California Government Code §
`
`12940 et seq. (“FEHA”).
`
`
`
`63. During the three years Plaintiff worked for ACTIVISION BLIZZARD from 2017 to
`
`2020, Defendant SKORUPA, Defendant INGALLS and Defendant PATEL made unwelcome
`
`sexual comments towards her, while Defendant SKORUPA, Defendant KILGORE and
`
`Defendant NGUYEN made unwelcome sexual advances towards her.
`
`
`
`64. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD participated in, assisted or encouraged the harassing
`
`conduct. Defendant SKORUPA, Defendant INGALLS, Defendant PATEL, Defendant
`
`KILGORE and Defendant NGUYEN are also personally liable for such harassment under Gov.
`
`Code § 12940(j).
`
`
`
`65. The conduct of Defendants, as alleged in this Complaint, was so severe, widespread
`
`or persistent to alter the terms and conditions of employment and was sufficiently severe and/or
`
`pervasive such that it created a hostile and abusive work environment.
`
`_____________________________________________________________________________________
`
`13
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` JANE DOE V. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., ET AL.
`
`
`
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`66. The conduct of the Defendants, as alleged in this Complaint, was so severe or
`
`pervasive that a reasonable person in Plaintiff’s circumstances would have considered the work
`
`environment to be hostile or abusive.
`
`
`
`67. Plaintiff perceived and considered the work environment to be hostile and abusive as
`
`a result of the conduct of Defendants, as alleged in this Complaint.
`
`
`
`68. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD is liable and responsible for the acts of their agents,
`
`supervisors and employees under Government Code § 12940(j) because Corporate Defendants
`
`knew of or had constructive knowledge of said conduct and failed to take timely and
`
`appropriate corrective action.
`
`69. Defendants created, fostered, tolerated, and condoned a work environment that was
`
`pervasively and/or severely hostile to Plaintiff on account of Plaintiff’s gender.
`
`70. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD ratified the conduct of Defendant SKORUPA, Defendant
`
`INGALLS, Defendant PATEL, Defendant KILGORE and Defendant NGUYEN in failing to
`
`take immediate and appropriate corrective action.
`
`71. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD knew or should have known of the conduct but failed to
`
`take immediate and appropriate corrective action by failing and refusing to remedy the hostile
`
`work environment and by failing and refusing to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment
`
`from occurring by permitting Defendant SKORUPA, Defendant INGALLS, Defendant PATEL,
`
`Defendant KILGORE and Defendant NGUYEN to continuously harass Plaintiff because of
`
`Plaintiff’s gender.
`
`72. Defendants committed their tortious and wrongful acts in the course and scope of
`
`their employment.
`
`73. The conduct of Defendants was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s harm.
`
`74. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD is also liable for the discrimination and harassment of
`
`Plaintiff under principles of vicarious liability, including the doctrine of respondeat superior,
`
`and are responsible for damages caused by said conduct.
`
`__________________________________________________________