Elena R. Baca  

As the global chair of her firm’s employment and labor practice group, Elena R. Baca counsels and handles litigation for many large companies in the entertainment, media, retail and other industries.

For the last two years, one matter has kept her especially busy. She oversees the representation of video game giant Activision Blizzard in litigations challenging its employment practices brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunities Commission and the California Civil Rights Department.

In March last year, she obtained court approval of an $18 million settlement with the EEOC. By now, all the money has been paid to claimants, with some left over for charity, she said. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 2:21-cv-07682 (C.D. Cal., filed Sept. 27, 2021).

But the Activision litigation is far from over. In fact, Baca said, overseeing all of it now is “more than a full-time job.”

“We’re in a lot of places with a lot of people. We are fortunate to be collaborating with some excellent firms in a variety of ways,” she said.

The state civil rights department unsuccessfully sought to intervene in the federal case, and that issue is now on appeal. The department also filed its own case against the company, which raises a host of challenging legal issues, according to Baca. California Civil Rights Department v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., 21STCV26571 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed July 20, 2021).

In that case, the civil right department says it is suing on behalf of some former and current Activision employees. That has led to a protracted discovery battle over who the department actually represents for the purpose of securing monetary relief. Baca said she wants “something more tangible than saying they’re suing on behalf of all women.”

Activision also has sued the state department over what it sees as inadequate responses to Public Records Act requests for records showing communications between the department and the media. The suit accuses the department of “orchestrat[ing] a comprehensive media campaign” against the company. Skinnell v. California Civil Rights Department, 34-2022-80004057 (Sacto. Super. Ct., filed Dec. 6, 2022).

The civil rights department did produce some records, but many of them were highly redacted, including its policy on document retention and communications with third parties, like the media.

What was received from the civil rights department revealed “there were high-level people at the agency that were engaged in communications with the media apparently about what seems to be the litigation, which would be irregular,” Baca said. “But it would explain some of the media coverage that occurred.”

The public records fight raises issues that are critically important not only to the litigants but to the press and the system.

“It presents questions of the obligations of the state to really be transparent” and to comply with proper records requests, Baca said. “Then the next step [for the government] is to not take a heavy black marker to everything they give you … without a sufficient explanation.”

— Don DeBenedictis