That legal document is quite amusing, and seems the spectre of gamergate looms larger than I thought for some if it is referenced in the first page. Would be amusing if Activision Blizzard respond with the FBI document in some capacity. IGN being cited (their history of it -
https://www.ign.com/articles/2010/10/01/the-history-of-activision ) also amuses but I suppose trade rags get cited for things all the time, just not used to seeing it.
Curious to see the full legal rebuttal as many of the cited incidents are not especially qualified, and I would have thought terminating women more commonly would have been flanked by without cause or other sufficient justification given phrases like "substantially similar work" in the line prior. Lack of claims of constructive dismissal (it is a phrase mentioned in the relevant aspects of law part) is quite odd for something like this too, though I don't know how hard they are to make in California so who knows.
The substantially similar work thing has me curious. Would want to know more there and a breakdown of things involved.
Cube crawl sounds lame, but bar crawls are as well; wasting valuable drinking time with all that walking. That said in and of itself (there are things in later lines which if true are grounds for something) I don't see the issue beyond it speaking to a poor work-life balance, however that seems to be most of tech and even more so in games where people generally seem to take a pittance because games is cool and there are a line of people out the door to replace them, some even with experience.
A lot the document is also heavy inference and association phrasing and precious little in any kind of mens rea (legal principle of guilty mind); if you are doing the means, motive, opportunity, establishing fact patterns and all the other things day 2 law students are supposed to be looking for then sorely lacking. Might make for a nice emotive argument but little of substance. Or if you prefer the old adage of "When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the law is on your side, pound the law. When neither is on you side, pound the table." is worth keeping in mind. What would be called puffery in sales and some selective use of statistics is also abundant in this (the percentage of games market as women vs percentage of activision blizzard's market as women would be a fairly interesting example), the CEO and president comment also somewhat selective (assuming it even matters).
"An internal investigation into the human resource unit noted there was a "big lack of trust" and that "HR not held in high regard". How amusing. Though as a general rule HR are never your friends; they are there to figure out who to fire with minimal cost to the company and also to insulate the company as best they can from... arguably things like this. More generally "who pays them?" is a question you always want to ask as that way the incentives are found.
"the manager commented that they could not risk promoting her as she might get pregnant and like being a mom too much"
Now I know that is what people think (basic business logic there really) but I would have thought even the knuckle draggers of manglement since about current space year minus 40 or so would know not to voice that to the subject of that... small mercy for Activision Blizzard it was not in a company email I guess and get to play who said what if in court.
Some I am curious to see if they are general lame business practices (dangling the carrot of promotion and whatnot to get a good employee on the cheap and running them into the ground, see also 90%+ of retail work) or actual discrimination. Similar thing for offered pay (employer wants to give them as little as possible, employee wants the most they can get aka basic wage negotiation. It is also noted a lot of women won't negotiate as hard and have different risk analysis and approaches to conflict), though if they are bound by law to make it equal in outcome regardless (debatable as a concept if you ask me) then I guess there is that.
Said same seemingly assigned to lesser roles is an interesting one. Does potentially trouble substantially similar work claims (whatever phone game is on tick over vs latest COD) but I have no particular thing to go either way there.
Lack of promotions despite alleged better performance would also be something to get some further details on.
"male employees proudly came into work hungover. Similarly, male employees would play video games during work, engage in banter about their sexual encounters, talk openly about female bodies, and make numerous jokes about rape."
And? Sounds like a boring place to work but not particularly seeing cause for action in this case. Painting a scene is a thing you can do I guess. Now a few lines after there would be some potential incidents for harassment claims or some flavour of hostile work environment, especially if compounded by HR of dubious quality to some ideal standard (again they are not your friend and never were or will be, give or take some hypothetical where they are employee funded).
"who were not "huge games" or "core gamers" and that were into the party scene were treated as outsiders"
Again boring place to work but I do find workplaces do have a culture, and one wonders if this is simple mismatch on that front. I have done some stuff for car garages before... surprisingly they are often places where people like their cars and other motorised fun. I think we can all agree quite unexpected that such a thing as quoted would exist for a gaming company.
"Crosby". One of a few typos but would speak to some lack of attention to detail there.
The earlier thing about a suicide on a business trip is expanded upon a tiny bit later (section 48, or line 17 of page 15). However two at this point separate incidents appear to be connected as part of it, which might be relevant but at this point is not the basis for much.
Anyway if even a fraction of this is true there is a good reason I don't work in games, much less for activision blizzard. As a case though... could be far stronger, though I also rarely find such things get filed if the prosecution does not think they can win.
Source
