Putative class counsel denies state attorney’s insinuations

Tensions flared again Thursday when an attorney representing plaintiffs in a sex discrimination case against Riot Games slammed the state's civil rights agency, which intervened in the case, for suggesting there may be collusion happening between the women and the gaming giant.

"Let me say it this way: The plaintiffs very strongly take exception to the suggestions by the Department of Fair Employment and Housing that there is or may be any form of collusion whatsoever, because there is not," attorney Genie E. Harrison snapped in a Los Angeles County Superior Court hearing. "Our clients have an absolute right to participate in any collective settlement discussions they wish to participate in. I'm accountable to my clients, not the government, not the government's interests, or the [Division of Labor Standards Enforcement] in this in terms of having a discussion."

Harrison, founder of Genie Harrison Law Firm, represents the putative class of women along with co-counsel Nicholas Sarris of JML Law. Both attorneys have accused the agency of hampering settlement talks between the women and Riot Games. Harrison maintains she repeatedly invited the agency to participate in settlement talks, but that it has chosen not to do so.

"I have never, and will not ever bring a motion for preliminary approval on any settlement that I don't think is completely appropriate and reached on a good faith basis on evidence and expert analysis, which we have," she told Judge Elihu M. Berle during Thursday's virtual arguments. "I cannot tell the court how strongly I object to the inferences by the DFEH or DLSE that there's any form of collusion happening. There is not!"

The showdown underscored the ongoing clash between the state's civil rights agency and women who want to settle with the League of Legends creator, which was sued three years ago over claims that it facilitated a "bro culture" environment. The women's lawsuit says they were subject to pay inequity, sexual harassment and discrimination, and were retaliated against for making complaints. McCracken et al. v. Riot Games, 18STCV03957 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Nov. 6, 2018).

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing launched an investigation into Riot Games' workplace conduct in 2018. The present putative class action shortly followed. The department intervened as plaintiff after a preliminary settlement for $10 million was reached between Riot Games and the class in 2019. The department maintained that the deal was inadequate and sought records of confidential settlements the company reached in the past with other plaintiffs.

Class counsel and Riot Games' lawyers from Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP asked Berle for a mandatory settlement conference overseen by Judge Daniel J. Buckley, citing his success in helping to negotiate an $852 million deal between USC and more than 700 women who said they were sexually abused by former gynecologist George Tyndall.

The agency refused to participate, and asked Berle to stop any settlement conferences. The department's counsel, Melanie L. Proctor, wrote in court papers that Riot Games hid from the court and the agency misleading settlement terms it reached with other women for nearly two years. Proctor said that Riot Games only turned over the information to the agency three months after Berle ordered it to do so. Included in the settlements was an agreement that government agencies would not be told about the underlying allegations, Proctor said.

Now, the class plaintiffs and Riot Games want to proceed with settlement negotiations even though Riot Games has not given the government all of the documents related to the allegations, Proctor said.

Any proposed deal would still have to be approved by him, the judge reminded the parties, and the state would have an opportunity to object.

"The fact a judge conducts a mandatory settlement conference doesn't mean a judge approves or disapproves a settlement. It just helps parties at least reach a settlement," Berle said.

But Proctor said the agency has a broader duty than getting a monetary settlement for plaintiffs. To protect the public, the agency needs to determine if there is a pattern and practice of discriminatory behavior at Riot Games, she said, and for that the state needs more documents from the company.

She also suggested there is something odd about the plaintiffs. Six out of seven entered into arbitration with Riot Games. The seventh, Gabriele Downie, dismissed her claims in 2019 and agreed to stand as class representative, even though, Proctor said, Downie lacked standing.

Proctor wants Riot Games to withdraw its confidentiality claims to some settlement documents that would make the reasons for Downie's actions clear, she told Berle.

Berle seemed unconvinced. And Proctor finally conceded the point.

"If the private plaintiffs and Riot want to go to a mandatory settlement conference on their own, or want to settle privately on their own, of course they can," she agreed. "And the department will review that settlement as it reviewed prior settlements, and make any statements they feel are appropriate."