The Riot Games suit may have seemed ready to settle, but California state agencies are intervening with the League of Legends developer's $10 million payout. Instead, the state seems to believe the women of Riot Games could be entitled to $400 million.
A report from the Los Angeles Times found documents filed on Jan. 8 of this year from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The state agency says the women of Riot Games could be entitled to "over $400 million" due to potential backpay from the wage differential between men and women in the company.
The agency also criticized the currently proposed settlement, which is waiting to be finalized by the Los Angeles Supreme Court. The Fair Employment and Housing department writes that "no enforceable changes to employment policies, at a company alleged to be rife with sexism, are part of the settlement."
Another state agency, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, has filed a request to officially intervene, saying the lawyers representing the women who worked at Riot Games did not do their due diligence, and that some terms of the settlement are letting Riot off the hook when it comes to issues like overtime and minimum wages.
On Jan. 31, the court will hear whether the Labor Standards Enforcement division will be allowed to intervene, in which case the agency could engage in its own litigation against Riot Games. Then, on Feb. 3, the court will determine whether the proposed increase of the settlement should move forward or not.
In a statement to the LA Times, Riot spokesperson Joe Hixson wrote a statement to the LA Times, rebuffing the notion that mistakes were made in the process of reaching a settlement. Both Riot Games and Rosen Saba, the law firm representing the plaintiffs in the case, have filed rebuttals to some state objections.
This dispute began in 2018 where, after a Kotaku report exposing issues of sexism and inappropriate workplace conduct at Riot Games, several women sued the League of Legends studio. There were walkout protests held in opposition to forced arbitration clauses in employee contracts, and the company has since made efforts to bolster its diversity and inclusion efforts.