Riot Games Calls $400mn Gender Discrimination Claim As “a clickbait number designed to get attention”

Riot Games was under legal scrutiny after a group of workers sued the company for sexual discrimination. While there was a proposed settlement of $10mn to the 1000 women working in the company since 2014, it is still pending approval. Riot was alleged of the California Equal Pay Act.

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) had claimed that the women could have dues exceeding $400mn. However, that claim is false, as Riot claims. In court papers (thanks, PCGamesN), Riot Games says “The DFEH’s claim that the ‘maximum exposure in back pay owed to female employees alone exceeds $400m’ is outrageous, reckless, and without any basis in fact or law. Indeed, there are numerous methodological deficiencies in how the DFEH reaches this number, each of which makes the ultimate conclusion wholly unsound.” They further add “is completely lacking in factual or legal support and is instead rife with inflammatory misstatements and insinuations”.

Riot goes on explaining that the method undertaken by DFEH to support the claims is flaws. They add “The DFEH’s $400m number, although dramatic, is based on a flawed approach to data that is grossly distorted and misleading. As the agency charged with understanding pay equity issues, the DFEH knows this. Thus, it appears that the DFEH’s intent is not to provide a meaningful analysis of the alleged pay disparities here, but to proffer the most outlandish figure possible, in order to garner sensational headlines and pressure Riot in the public. In short, no one – not Plaintiffs, not Riot, and not the DFEH – claims that a total wage differential is an appropriate measure of pay disparity, and thus the $400m [number] has zero relevance to the court’s inquiry,”

Finally, they say ““In short, no one – not Plaintiffs, not Riot, and not the DFEH – claims that a total wage differential is an appropriate measure of pay disparity, and thus the $400m [number] has zero relevance to the court’s inquiry,”

The matter is set for further hearing on 3rd February.