For the last several months,Activision Blizzardhas been surrounded by controversy as a variety of lawsuits have been filed against it. Recently,Activision Blizzardmade an attempt to reach a settlement with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which could conclude a three-year-long investigation, only for another agency suing the company to file a formal objection. However, the EEOC has turned around and accused the objecting agency, the California Department for Employment and Housing, of ethics violations.
Reportedly,Activision Blizzard’s attempt to reach a settlementwith the EEOC could lead to evidence related to the DFEH’s case against the company being sealed or effectively destroyed. The DFEH apparently filed its objection to try and stop this from causing “irreparable harm” to its case, but the EEOC appears to have turned the tables with a new revelation that places the DFEH’s ethical conduct in jeopardy.
RELATED:Overwatch League Sponsors Quietly Return After Blizzard Lawsuit Controversy
The DFEH is a state department of California, but the EEOC is a federal agency. Reportedly, the California Rule of Professional Conduct prohibits attorneys from representing the DFEH in connection with cases they previously helped direct an investigation into while working with the EEOC. Unfortunately, the EEOC claims this is exactly what two DFEH attorneys who previously worked on the EEOC’s own investigation of Activision Blizzard–and who recently were involved infiling the objection against the EEOC’s settlement–have done. This may have significant legal consequences for the DFEH’s case against Activision Blizzard.
If these accusations are true, it would be be a conflict of interest and a breach of professional ethics on top of aviolation of Californian lawon the conduct of attorneys. The EEOC’s response memorandum states that the two attorneys, who reportedly play leadership roles within the DFEH as of writing, had previously helped direct the EEOC’s three-year-long investigation. When they apparently represented the DFEH in connection with the official objection, they were seeking to oppose the consent decree that was born from the investigation they helped to direct during their service at the EEOC.
According to the memorandum, the DFEH was aware of the issue and took some measures to conceal the matter before filing the objection. Reportedly, the DFEH hired new lawyers before serving an appeal that the original two lawyers had clearly worked on. It remains to be seen whether these revelations will have an impact on theexisting Activision Blizzard lawsuits, as the DFEH has yet to reply to this round of allegations.
