While the court denied the request, it does not prevent them from pursuing the matter, only requiring that they do so on their own time. In both the DFEH's motion to intervene in the EEOC settlement and Activision's request to temporarily suspend the DFEH investigation, the request for an expedited decision has been denied, but that doesn't stop them from perusing the topics - in this case, specifically allowing everyone involved to continue looking into whether the DFEH violated procedural rules by engaging in misrepresentation, but not halting the entire case while they do so.Īctivision Blizzard's application (left) requests for a stay in the DFEH case, temporarily pausing it while they sort out whether any violation of professional conduct has taken place. ![]() The expedited nature of both these motions is the important distinction, as an ex parte application asks the court to make an immediate decision based on the facts presented, rather than over the normal course of events which can include lengthy argument and counter argument from both sides. ![]() Like the previous DFEH request to intervene against the EEOC's $18 million settlement, Activision Blizzard's motion was "ex parte," or an expedited request asking the courts to pause the DFEH investigation while the company's lawyers investigated whether the State violated the California Rules of Professional Conduct. ![]() The Los Angeles Superior Court came back with a decision yesterday, denying the expedited request to pause the investigation, but still allowing the company's lawyers to look into whether any such violations actually took place. Earlier this week, Activision Blizzard filed a motion to temporarily suspend California's sexual harassment and discrimination case, due to the alleged conflict of interest and ethics violations revealed by the U.S.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |