#DFEH director Kevin Kish

[oliviajames1122]

Riot Games to pay $100m in a discrimination case

Riot Games, the studio best known for League of Legends, has agreed to pay $100m (£74.3m) to settle a 2018 class-action gender discrimination case.

The settlement will "remedy violations against approximately 1,065 women employees and 1,300 women contract workers", California's Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) wrote.

DFEH said the firm engaged in "systemic sex discrimination and harassment".

Riot Games said it must "take responsibility for the past".

The company will pay $80m (£59m) to members of the class action suit and about $20m (£15m) will cover legal costs.

The 2018 case followed investigations by the Los Angeles Times and the news website Kotaku.

According to the original complaint against the company, Riot was accused of fostering a "bro culture" and faced a range of allegations.

These included that women had been sexually objectified, with an email chain that rated the company's "hottest women employees", and that unsolicited images of male genitalia had been shown to workers by their bosses and colleagues many business listings.

Industry problem

As part of the settlement, Riot agreed to workplace reforms, independent expert analysis of its pay, hiring, and promotion practices, and to be monitored for instances of sexual harassment and "retaliation" at its California offices for three years.

The company must also set aside $18m (13.2m) to fund diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and create 40 full-time positions in engineering, quality assurance, or art-design roles for its former contract workers.

DFEH Director Kevin Kish wrote that, if accepted by the court, the settlement would lead to lasting change at Riot Games and "send the message that all industries in California, including the gaming industry, must provide equal pay and workplaces free from discrimination and harassment" business listings.

Riot had initially agreed to settle the case for $10m in 2019, but the DFEH and another agency had blocked the deal arguing that the amount to which victims were entitled was much higher.

The company said it had to face the fact that it hadn't always lived up to its values, telling the Washington Post: "While we're proud of how far we've come since 2018, we must also take responsibility for the past".

"We hope that this settlement properly acknowledges those who had negative experiences at Riot."

In a letter to staff, published online, Riot's executive team said the settlement was, "the right thing to do, for both the company and those whose experiences at Riot fell short of our standards and values" free business listings.

The company told the BBC that since 2018 it had made improvements across the workplace, including hiring its first chief people officer and its first chief diversity officer, rewriting its values, mandating new training programs, and enlarging its diversity and inclusion team.

Riot Games is not the only prominent games firm to face questions about workplace culture.

The DFEH is also taking action against Activision Blizzard, the company behind the games World of Warcraft, over watch, and Call of Duty.

Activision Blizzard recently reached an $18m (£13.2m) settlement with the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) over claims of sexual discrimination and harassment.

[coochiequeens]

Women have to give up their spaces because a man was harassed in the mens locker room by....being called a slur. That’s unfortunate, and the man who said that was absolutely in the wrong, but that’s not being in danger. While now the women’s space is open to any man who claims to be a woman.

A transgender woman has reached a settlement with an El Cajon gym to resolve allegations that she was not allowed to use the women's locker room and restroom in violation of state law, it was announced Wednesday.

The lawsuit filed by the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing alleged that Crunch Fitness management refused Christynne Wood's right to use those facilities despite California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, which bans discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.

When Wood sought to use the facilities, she was told she would need a doctor's verification that she was transitioning, but was denied access despite presenting a doctor's letter confirming her treatments and the importance that she is able to use the women's facilities, as well as a court order showing she had legally changed her name and gender, according to a statement from the American Civil Liberties Union.

About one year later, she was allowed access to the women's facilities after a man harassed her in the men's locker room by directing a homophobic slur toward Wood, the ACLU said. The DFEH filed a lawsuit against Crunch Fitness the following year.

As part of the settlement, Wood will receive an undisclosed sum and Crunch Fitness has agreed to have its employees undergo anti-discrimination training, which will include the identification and prevention of harassment based on gender expression.

"I feel elated and validated to finally reach a resolution in this case," Wood said. "I hope the settlement helps the owners of Crunch and other gyms appreciate the importance of respecting transgender people's identities. It's not only our legal right but also could save a life."

Wood remains a member of the gym, which has since undergone an ownership and management change.

DFEH Director Kevin Kish said the agency "brought suit in this case under the California Unruh Civil Rights Act to vindicate the essential right of transgender Californians to live their lives free from discrimination. Today's settlement ensures that no Californian will face the discrimination Ms. Wood experienced in the future at this establishment."

Of course a man sees no problem in making sure another man is able to use the women’s locker room.

[innocentamit]

California is suing Tesla over 'racial discrimination and harassment'

California is suing Tesla over ‘racial discrimination and harassment’

A California civil rights agency has filed a lawsuit against Tesla for alleged racial discrimination and harassment at its Fremont factory, according to The Wall Street Journal. “After receiving hundreds of complaints from workers, DFEH found evidence that Tesla’s Fremont factory is a racially segregated workplace,” said California Department of Fair Employment and Housing director Kevin Kish in…

[misangremellama]

Forever 21 is getting hit with a lawsuit for an "English-only policy" at its flagship San Francisco store.

The Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) filed the suit on behalf of three employees who were allegedly discrimination against by management for speaking Spanish to each other and Spanish-speaking customers.

Francisco Leon, Ignacio Martinez, and Freddy Tovar were verbally abused by Amanda Harris, the store's assistant manager of merchandising, and stock manager Luis Morale, according to The Fashion Law.

They were prohibited from speaking languages other than English — even when greeting each other — and faced hostile working conditions after they inquired about the policy.

The employees were penalized after vocalizing their concerns to Forever 21's human resources department.

Their work hours were reduced and they were subjected to further harassment.

The former employees sought legal aid from La Raza Centro Legal in May 2015, according to the organization's workers rights attorney Alejandra Cuestas. Cuestas contacted the store about the language policy.

Initially, Forever 21 didn't respond to her request. They later denied the existence of the policy. La Raza Centro Legal filed a discrimination complaint with DFEH.

DFEH filed the lawsuit on March 29. The lawsuit alleges that the employees "suffered past and future lost wages [and] suffered emotional injuries, including but not limited to, emotional distress, anxiety, frustration, humiliation, mental anguish, nervousness, and other non-pecuniary losses."

DFEH claims that the clothing retailer violated Title 42, one of California's civil rights laws.

Title 42 states that it is "unlawful for an employer to adopt or enforce a policy that limits or prohibits the use of any language in any workplace, unless the language restriction if justified by a business necessity and the employer notified its employees of the circumstances [in advance]."

DFEH director Kevin Kish told CBS San Francisco that Forever 21's policy is illegal.

"Linguistic diversity is a business reality in the California workplace, and the department will carefully scrutinize English-only rules to ensure that all employees are treated equally, regardless of their national origin," he said.

The irony is that Forever 21 was founded by a married couple who emigrated from South Korea. They weren't fluent in English.

In 1981, Jin Sook and Do Won "Don" Chang moved from South Korea to Los Angeles and created the retail empire that we know today.

"The husband-and-wife duo, both 26 at the time, landed in California penniless, speaking broken English, and without college degrees," Business Insider reported.

The adoption and enforcement of English-only rules in Forever 21 is hypocritical, but neither of the founders have released an official statement about it.

The first hearing for this case is in August. The complainants are seeking compensatory damages as well as a court-ordered injunction to stop the policy.

"I would like workers to know if they are in this situation, they should know that it's not wrong for them to speak in their native language, the state law protects them," Cuestas told CBS San Francisco.

A Forever 21 spokeswoman wouldn't comment on pending litigation, but did tell CBS Francisco that the company "is committed to diversity and inclusion in all of our stores and does not have any policies with regards to the language spoken in our stores."

[felahylaw]

DFEH and Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. Reach Settlement in Employment Religious Discrimination Case

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) has reached a settlement in an employment religious discrimination case with ChipotleMexican Grill, Inc. The settlement involved a former line worker at a Chipotle location in Alhambra, CA, who alleged he was fired for requesting a religious accommodation. The former employee filed a complaint with DFEH on April 21, 2018 alleging Chipotle failed toaccommodate his religious practice which required him to wear a religious bracelet at all times. The complainant was sent home by a manager when he refused to remove a bracelet worn by adherents of his Santeria Ochosi faith. A manager at a different Chipotle location had providedthe religious accommodation to the complainant. DFEH found cause to believe a violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act had occurred and the case was referred to mandatory mediation, where it settled prior to litigation. “California law requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for religious dress and grooming practices,” said DFEH Director Kevin Kish. “Californians of all faiths are entitled to reasonable accommodations for religious practices that do not impose an unduehardship on the employer.” 

[furynewsnetwork]

LISTEN TO TLR’S LATEST PODCAST:

By Eric Lieberman 

California regulators announced Thursday that it is fining a housing host on Airbnb $5,000 for refusing to accept a guest because of her race.

Tami Barker, who owns a a cabin in Big Bear Lake, a city in the southern part of the state, reportedly told would-be guest Dyne Suh in a virtual message “I wouldn’t rent to u if u were the last person on earth.”

Her reasoning: “One word says it all. Asian.”

Barker apparently cancelled Suh’s reservation after the prospective guest had already traveled a long distance to reach the vacation destination.

Suh tearfully explained in a YouTube video what happened, alleging that Barker texted her the promise, “I will not allow this country to be told what to do by foreigners.”

In another message, the host also reportedly told Suh “It’s why we have Trump.”

The California Department of Fair Employment & Housing (DFEH) said the monetary penalty was in agreement with the now-former Airbnb host. After Suh filed a complaint to Airbnb, the online lodging service conducted an investigation and permanently banned Barker from using the service ever again.

“We commend Ms. Suh, who was motivated to file a complaint by a desire to encourage other victims of discrimination to step forward and stand against injustice,” said DFEH Director Kevin Kish in the official press release announcing the agreement. “We are also heartened by the Host’s willingness to embrace corrective measures that are forward-looking and restorative.”

While also issuing a personal apology to Suh and consenting to the fine, Barker agreed to a number of other stipulations in order to comply with anti-discrimination laws, including: attending a training, taking a college level course in Asian American studies, participating “in a community education panel,” volunteering at a civil rights organization, and reporting “rental data to DFEH for a period of four years.”

The DFEH and Airbnb collaborated earlier in the year to make it easier for users of the service to file complaints of racial discrimination with the government agency.

Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky lamented last year over his belief that his company inadvertently ignored racism on the platform for years.

“As a founder, I think we were late to this issue. We were so focused on an issue of trust and keeping people safe, responding to other people’s issues on trust and safety, that we took our eye off the ball,” Chesky said, according to Business Insider. “When we designed the platform, three white guys, there were a lot of things we didn’t think about. There are racists in the world and we need to have zero tolerance.”

Follow Eric on Twitter

Send tips to eric@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Click here for reuse options! Copyright 2017 Daily Caller News Foundation

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

WATCH TLR’S LATEST VIDEO:

The post California Fines Woman $5,000 For Refusing Housing Services To An Asian Guest appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

via Headline News – The Libertarian Republic

[touristguidebuzz]

Airbnb Settles Race Discrimination Complaint in California

Airbnb and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing have signed a voluntary agreement to work toward curb racial discrimination on the Airbnb platform. Airbnb

Skift Take: Whatever can be done to prevent discrimination and bias on the Airbnb platform is a good thing. Let's just hope this plan works toward that goal.

— Deanna Ting

Nearly a year after a California government agency filed a complaint alleging that Airbnb failed to prevent discrimination against African-American guests using its short-term rental platform, the company is making an attempt to work with government regulators to police and improve upon its non-discrimination policy.

On April 27, Airbnb and the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) announced that both parties had signed an agreement on April 19 whereby Airbnb would, for at least the next two years, voluntarily agree to take specific actions that address racial bias and discrimination on its platform.

These actions include, but are not limited to, regularly scheduled reports to be submitted to the DFEH about the company’s ability to curb discrimination, as well as fair housing testing by the DFEH on Airbnb hosts with three or more listings in California who have been the subject of one or more discrimination complaints.

“We will continue to work collaboratively with Airbnb to prevent racial discrimination by its hosts,” said DFEH Director Kevin Kish in a press statement. “California is committed to removing all discriminatory barriers in housing, including in new platforms and marketplaces. Fair housing testing is an important and powerful tool in enforcing fair housing laws.”

In a statement published on Airbnb’s blog, Airbnb General Counsel Rob Chesnut said, “Fighting discrimination is fundamental to our mission and we are committed to creating a community that is open to everyone. Our work with the State of California builds on our ongoing efforts to fight bias and we look forward to continuing to work with state leaders to ensure the Airbnb community is fair for everyone.”

Airbnb has long battled allegations that the design of its short-term rental platform does little to prevent bias or discrimination, either on the part of its hosts or its guests. Those complaints, which stretch as far back as 2015, came to boiling point last year when the hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack brought international media attention to the problem and a class-action lawsuit followed.

In response, Airbnb launched a review of its policies, led by civil rights leader and longtime American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) executive Laura W. Murphy and former U.S. Attorney General Eric J. Holder. That review, in turn, resulted in a revised nondiscrimination policy that was announced on Sept. 8, 2016 and further clarified on Nov. 1 with new updated terms of service for all users.

The Bigger Question: Was This Agreement Absolutely Necessary?

While Airbnb has made concerted efforts to show it is actively fighting discrimination and bias on its platform — including achieving its goal of having at least 1 million of its more than 3 million listings instantly bookable by January 2017 — a bigger question lingers.

Namely, why did the DFEH feel it was necessary to accept this agreement from Airbnb? And vice versa: Why did Airbnb agree to it?

In a release issued by the DFEH, it noted the agreement was reached after “more than ten months of investigation and collaborative work between DFEH and the company.” DFEH Director Kevin Kish originally filed complaints against Airbnb on June 7, 2016, alleging that the company “may have engaged in acts of discrimination in violation of Government Code, section 12955 and the Unruh Act, Civil Code, section 51,” according to court documents relating to the agreement (attached below).

Essentially, the DFEH’s complaints said Airbnb may have violated the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and the Unruh Act because it failed to prevent discrimination from taking place on its platform, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The Unruh Act says it is illegal for a business establishment of any kind to intentionally fail to prevent discrimination.

However, as noted in the court documents, Airbnb maintains it is exempt from any liability under the FEHA and Unruh Act because of its favorite federal law: Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA is a federal law that basically says websites can’t be held responsible for the actions of the people who use those sites.

This is the same law Airbnb has used to make its case in various legal battles over short-term regulation, both in New York City and San Francisco. Airbnb’s CDA argument helped the company “win” its case in New York City by placing all legal liability on the company’s hosts, instead of Airbnb itself.

Airbnb’s CDA argument is noted in the court documents, but the DFEH does not explicitly say that this CDA argument is valid. However, the agreement does note that the DFEH will not file any discrimination-related complaints against Airbnb for at least two years.

Ben Edelman, the Harvard researcher whose work is cited as evidence for Airbnb’s violations of the FEHA and Unruh Acts in the same court documents, said he’s baffled by the DFEH’s decision to accept this agreement by Airbnb.

“The fact that they have to settle to get the right to ‘test’ Airbnb is incredibly ironic,” Edelman said. “Imagine if a police officer needed a settlement from me to check if he can use his radar gun to check my speeding. That’s basically what’s happened here. To test Airbnb for discrimination, they [DFEH] have to promise not to sue Airbnb for 18 months. Regulators shouldn’t have to ask permission to examine a product or service that they’re regulating. The settlement wasn’t totally clear as to why the DFEH felt it needed to ask permission. Did the DFEH feel constrained by Airbnb’s terms of service that don’t allow fake accounts and testing?”

Edelman said that in the course of his research into discrimination and bias on the Airbnb platform that Airbnb “blocked” him from creating fake accounts to do testing.

“If the state of California needs its help in order to test Airbnb’s service I think that portends badly for independent oversight of tech companies,” Edelman added. “It makes it harder to get regulators informed about what’s going on and what work needs to be done. It seems, to me, quite alarming. I didn’t like that as a bargaining chip. That, to me, is table stakes. If you want your service to be technically legal in the state of California, the regulator needs to be able to protect it.”

On the other hand, Eric Goldman, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and an expert on legal issues relating to websites, said it was prudent for the DFEH to be able to “test” the platform in this manner.

“Does the government need an agreement to gather that information to assess discriminatory behavior on the Airbnb site? The short answer is, ‘Yes.’ If the government wants to do that they have to create fictional listings and engage in fictional activity. That’s against Airbnb’s rules and that would create a lot of chaos in their system.”

Goldman also thinks that, in comparison to many other tech companies, Airbnb is investing much more into fighting discrimination than most.

“Airbnb has gone way above industry standard behavior for paying attention to discriminatory issues,” he said. “We don’t see Internet companies investing these kinds of resources that Airbnb is investing here. Whether you call it ‘voluntary’ or ‘coerced,’ the fact that Airbnb is doing this without being legally required to do so shows that they took this issue seriously.”

Goldman added that while he’s not familiar with legal procedures related to this particular government agency, he thinks the complaints would have led to some sort of litigation had Airbnb and the DFEH had not come to an agreement.

“If this had gone to court, Airbnb would have invoked Section 230 [of the CDA] and other defenses,” he explained. “The court may have said the department completely overreached. Both parties had some uncertainty over what would happen. So, they came up with an agreement that was helpful to both sides.”

A Closer Look at the Agreement

Within the agreement itself, there are references to a few different actions Airbnb may (or in some cases, may not) take in an effort to prevent discrimination and bias, many of which were originally cited in Murphy’s September report.

This includes making the revised non-discrimination agreement more prominent and visible on Airbnb’s website and mobile, and if Airbnb makes any changes to the policy it has to notify DFEH. Airbnb will also explore “the availability of alternatives to the current use of guest photos and names.” The displaying of people’s names and photos is something Edelman and other critics have pointed out as one of the biggest deterrents to establishing a discrimination- and bias-free platform. Airbnb will also focus on increasing the number of listings it has that are instantly bookable, and regularly inform the DFEH about its actions.

Interestingly, the agreement with the DFEH also says “Airbnb shall consider developing a feature” that would hold hosts who reject a request on “claimed unavailability.” In Murphy’s report, however, Airbnb said that it would develop a feature that would address this very issue within the first half of 2017. So, if a guest is informed by a host that his requested dates are unavailable — even though the dates were advertised as being vacant — Airbnb would automatically block out those dates for any other requests that come up for those same dates, ensuring the host cannot make the listing available to other guests of a different race, etc. Judging from the DFEH agreement, it’s unclear whether that feature is set to be completed or implemented anytime soon.

Another interesting product feature mentioned in the agreement is the addition of a “gallery” in the host’s profile that would collect information on all the guests who were rejected by a host. This gallery would only be seen by the host and, internally, Airbnb, “for the purpose of identifying, monitoring, and preventing discrimination.” Airbnb is expected to make a decision about this new feature within the next three months and if it ultimately decides not to proceed with the “gallery feature,” it will have to inform the DFEH as to why.

Edelman, for one, doesn’t think the gallery tool will be an effective way to combat discrimination or bias, however. “The gallery feature embodies Airbnb’s vision of hosts being responsible for making these decisions,” he explained. “Airbnb would have California look at an individual host and an individual host’s decision about whom to accept and whom to reject. That’s all well and good but that puts aside the fact that Airbnb designs the platform in the first place. Why are the pics even there? Why are names even included in a reservation request? The gallery puts the focus away from those fundamental questions and it’s a very narrow view of the individual actions of an individual host.”

Edelman also wondered why Airbnb would only create a gallery of all the people whom a single host has declined, without also creating a gallery of all the guests whom that host has accepted.

Additionally, Airbnb has agreed to offer anti-discrimination and bias-awareness training to all of its California-based employees, including customer support employees, and it will also make available unconscious bias training for hosts with listings in California. Airbnb’s Tax & Legal department will provide a report at least every six months to the General Counsel of Airbnb and DFEH, and the DFEH has right to review and copy non-privileged records upon request. The company also said it has a full-time product team devoted to advancing “belonging and inclusion and to root out bias.”

If Airbnb doesn’t show “statistically significant and operationally meaningful improvement in the relative acceptance rate” for “Caucasian, African American, Hispanic, and Asian American guests” within 18 months of the agreement going into effect, the terms of the voluntary agreement will be extended for one more year, and Airbnb will have to come up with a new plan for increasing the relative acceptance rate.

Download (PDF, 883KB)