Activision Judge Refuses to Delay Sexual Harassment Settlement

A proposed settlement between Activision Blizzard Inc. and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission can proceed, a federal judge ruled Wednesday, denying the state of California’s bid to delay the case while it appeals an earlier ruling.

Judge Dale. S. Fischer of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in December blocked California’s civil rights agency, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, from joining the federal agency’s suit as a formal party, instead allowing it to file an amicus brief outlining its opposition to the proposed settlement.

The EEOC deal, announced in September resolves sexual harassment claims against Activision for $18 million, and follows the federal agency’s multi-year investigation into allegations of workplace bias at the company.

DFEH, which also sued Activision over harassment and discrimination claims, argued the federal settlement would release Activision from state claims, which the EEOC lacks standing to prosecute. The state agency asked Fischer to pause the federal case while it asks the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to allow it to join the federal case. Allowing the case to proceed while the appeal is pending would impair its mission to protect the public interest, DFEH said.

Fischer rejected the stay request Wednesday.

The requested pause could be lengthy because neither the court nor the parties have any control over how quickly the Ninth Circuit will be able to consider DFEH’s appeal, she said. In the meantime, the immediate relief set out in the EEOC’s proposed settlement would be kept from going into effect, including injunctive relief against further harassment, and a claims resolution system that could reduce the need for numerous other independent lawsuits.

And the alleged prejudice DFEH describes would potentially stem from approval of the settlement itself, not from the agency’s participation as amicus curiae rather than formal party, Fischer wrote.

The intervention appeal has no effect on anything substantive in the EEOC’s case, and only addresses the level of participation to which DFEH is entitled, she said. The state agency hasn’t explained what particular advantage it would gain from formal intervention, and hardship to it, if the proceedings continue, is minimal or nonexistant.

Paul Hastings LLP represents Activision. Outten and Golden LLP and Olivier Schreiber & Chao LLP represent DFEH.

The case is EEOC v. Activision Blizzard Inc., C.D. Cal., No. 2:21-cv-07682, 2/23/22.