Riot Games announced that it has reached a global settlement agreement with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE), and several private Plaintiffs to resolve the class-action gender discrimination litigation originally initiated as “McCracken vs Riot Games” in 2018.

Riot is headquartered in Los Angeles, California, and has 3,000+ employees in 20+ offices worldwide. The company was founded by Brandon Beck and Marc Merrill in 2006, and is currently led by CEO Nicolo Laurent.

The settlement covers a 2018 class action lawsuit filed by current and former Riot employees in the wake of a Kotaku report detailing systemic sexism and unfair treatment. The suit described an environment where male employees made derogatory sexual comments about female colleagues and passed them over for promotion, creating a company-wide “unwritten policy and practice of preferring men to women in the hiring, promotion, and compensation of its employees.”

Under the proposed consent decree, Riot will pay over $100 million to remedy violations against approximately 1,065 women employees and 1,300 women contract workers. The decree requires comprehensive injunctive relief in the form of workplace reforms, independent expert analysis of Riot’s pay, hiring, and promotion practices, and independent monitoring of sexual harassment and retaliation at Riot’s California offices for three years.

The decree will also resolve claims brought by the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) in the first case jointly prosecuted by DFEH and DLSE.

In November 2018, former Riot employees filed a putative class action in Los Angeles Superior Court with private counsel and entered a proposed $10 million settlement of that action soon thereafter. In January 2020, both DFEH and DLSE objected to the proposed $10 million settlement. Both state entities then successfully intervened in the pending private action to protect the interests of the State and the women workers, and ensure the fairness of the resolution of the claims.

Both the DLSE and DFEH have jurisdiction to enforce the Equal Pay Act. This is the first case DFEH has litigated involving claims under that law, which the California Legislature authorized -DFEH to enforce starting January 2021 under SB 973 (Jackson).

Under the consent decree, Riot has agreed to:

– – Pay $100 million, of which a minimum of $80 million is dedicated to compensating workers. This amount includes $4 million in penalties under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), one of the largest such penalties assessed by the DLSE in its history.
– – Create a $6 million dollar cash reserve for each year of the three-year term of the consent decree (for a total of $18 million) to make pay adjustments and to fund diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.
– – Make available 40 full-time positions in engineer, quality assurance, or art-design roles to qualified class members who worked as temporary contractors in a competitive process.
– – Hire and pay for an independent third-party expert approved by DFEH to conduct a gender-equity analysis of employee pay, job assignments, and promotions each year for three years and remedy disparities that cannot be explained by bona fide, legitimate reasons.
– – Hire and pay for an independent third-party monitor approved by DFEH to audit compliance with workplace protections, including a review of complaint investigations and outcomes, each year for three years.

Women who worked as employees or contractors for Riot since November 6, 2014 may be eligible to receive compensation. Additional information will be posted on DFEH’s website following entry of the consent decree by the court.

Final approval of the settlement by the court is pending, with a hearing expected in the coming months.

The volume of prescription opioids dispensed from retail pharmacies declined by 21% from 2008 to 2018, but the decline was not uniform across geographic areas, among types of patients, or by type of prescriber, according to a new RAND Corporation study.

The study, published by the Annals of Internal Medicine, is the first to examine the decline in opioid prescriptions filled at retail pharmacies based on both volume and potency of the drugs dispensed.

“The findings do not provide concrete answers about how much of the unnecessary prescribing of opioids has been eliminated,” said Dr. Bradley D. Stein, the study’s lead author and a senior physician researcher at RAND, a nonprofit research organization. “But the work demonstrates that there is a lot more nuance in the changes in opioid prescribing than we previously understood.”

There is wide agreement that the overprescribing of opioid medication for pain was a key driver in creation of the U.S. opioid crisis, which has led to widespread addiction and now kills more than 100,000 Americans annually.

State, federal, and private initiatives have been undertaken to encourage physicians and other health providers to reduce the number of prescriptions written for opioids to treat pain. The number of opioid prescriptions peaked in 2011.

RAND researchers examined differences in opioid prescriptions filled at pharmacies during the periods of 2008 through 2009 and 2017 through 2018. The prescription information came from IQVIA Prescription data, which captures about 90% of prescriptions filled at U.S. retail pharmacies.

They used days’ supply and total daily opioid dose to calculate per capita morphine milligram equivalents (MME) for opioid prescriptions filled during the study period. Because opioids are available in different forms, this measurement provides a better assessment of the total amount of opioids filled by patients as compared to just the number of pills dispensed.

The study found that over the study period, per capita MME volume declined the most in metropolitan counties (more than 22%) and in counties with higher rates of fatal opioid overdoses (a 35% decline).

Substantial variation existed both within and across states. In some states, MME volume per capita increased in multiple counties. In many other states, there were both counties with increases and others with substantial decreases. Counties that experienced substantial decreases in per capita MME often were adjacent to counties with per capita increases.

Most clinical specialties recorded declines in the MME volume per practicing clinician. The greatest decrease in MME volume per practicing clinician was among adult primary care physicians (40% decline) and pain specialists (15% decline)—the clinicians with the highest MME volume per clinician in 2008–2009.

The greatest percentage decrease was among emergency physicians (71% decline)—clinicians who are likely prescribing opioids predominantly to patients experiencing acute pain in acute care settings.

“These results suggest the effects of clinician and policymaker efforts to reduce opioid prescribing have affected populations differently,” Stein said. “Future efforts to enhance clinically appropriate opioid prescribing may need to be more clinically nuanced and targeted for specific populations.”

Yeny Garcia resolved his industrial claim against Securitas Security Services USA by way of compromise and release on September 10, 2015.

On October 21, 2016, Delmar Medical Imaging filed its Notice and Request for Allowance of Lien. The declaration attached by the notice did not include the language found in section 4903.8(d)(1) or (d)(2).

On August 21, 2017, Delmar submitted an “Amended Declaration Pursuant to Labor Code Section 4903.8(d),” which included the language found in section 4903.8(d)(1) and (d)(2).

The WCJ found that lien claimant’s lien was invalid when filed on October 21, 2016 and that the “amended” lien filed on August 21, 2017, was untimely. The lien claimant was required to file its lien no later than 18 months after the last day of service. Thus the lien claimant’s lien was barred by the statute of limitations and the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 473 were not met, and thus could not be used to allow them to amend the lien.

Based on these findings, the WCJ ordered lien claimant’s lien dismissed, and that it take nothing on its lien.

The Petition for Reconsideration filed by Delmar was denied in the panel decision of Garcia v Securitas Security Services USA.

“A lien claimant may seek relief . . . by utilizing a procedure substantially similar to Code of Civil Procedure section 473 . . . .” (Fox v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1196, 1205-1206.) Code of Civil Procedure section 473(b).

CCP 473 allows a party to be relieved from “a judgment, dismissal, order, or other proceeding taken against him or her through his or her mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect” provided the “application for relief is made no more than six months after entry of judgment….”

In this case Delmar called Ms. Ghorbanian as a witness to support relief pursuant to CCP 473.

“This WCJ assessed Ms. Ghorbanian’s overall testimony, demeanor and determined that it was self-serving and did not demonstrate inadvertence, surprise, mistake or excusable neglect required by Code of Civil Procedure section 473.”

“She made contradictory statements about her knowledge of requirements for the Declaration. She placed reliance on a filing and document system authorized by an approved vendor. There was no testimony about any independent investigation, research, training, or other attempts to verify that the lien was properly filed with complete, accurate and required documents at the time of filing. She further justified the lack of her own verification of a proper filing because there was no contemporaneous objection made by Defendant when the lien was filed and served.”

Nearly $100 billion of COVID-relief funds have been fraudulently obtained in the US since the government rolled out the benefits during the pandemic, officials said.

The Secret Service revealed the massive figure in a Tuesday press release announcing the existence of new measures to capture cheats and seize the stolen funds.

The U.S. Secret Service has named Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAIC) Roy Dotson of the Jacksonville field office as the National Pandemic Fraud Recovery Coordinator. In this role, ASAIC Dotson will coordinate efforts across multiple ongoing Secret Service investigations into the fraudulent use of COVID-19 relief applications.

“The Secret Service has seen a huge uptick in electronic crime in furtherance of these fraud cases,” Dotson continued. “Criminals will often ask potential victims to open an account and move money for them for some reason as part of a ruse.” Fraudsters, for example, prey on people by engaging them online as part of a romance scam, phony job opportunity or other scheme, and then asking for financial favors. “Targeted individuals are often asked to open bank accounts and accept large sum deposits,” Dotson said. “As a result, people are becoming unwitting mules for stolen money.”

While fraud related to personal protective equipment (PPE) was of primary concern to law enforcement, including the Secret Service, early in the pandemic, the release of federal funding through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act has attracted the attention of individuals and organized criminal networks worldwide. The exploitation of pandemic-related relief is an investigative priority for the Secret Service and its partners.

As part of his duties as National Pandemic Fraud Recovery Coordinator, ASAIC Dotson will coordinate with financial institutions and money services businesses, United States Attorney Offices, and other federal agencies regarding large-scale seizures of illicitly obtained pandemic relief funds. This includes unemployment insurance (UI), U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) loan and grant programs, and other benefit programs.

“The Secret Service currently has more than 900 active criminal investigations into fraud specific to pandemic-related relief funds,” said Dotson.  “That’s a combination of pandemic benefits and all the other benefits programs too. Every state has been hit, some harder than others. The Secret Service is hitting the ground running, trying to recover everything we can, including funds stolen from both federal and state programs.”

To date, Secret Service investigations and investigative inquiries into UI and SBA loan fraud have resulted in the seizure of more than $1.2 billion and the return of more than $2.3 billion of fraudulently obtained funds via Automated Clearing House reversals.

These investigations have led to the arrest of 100 individuals responsible for UI and SBA loan fraud. The Secret Service continues to work closely with the U.S. Department of Labor and SBA Offices of Inspectors General (OIG), and the Pandemic Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) on identifying and preventing these crimes.

The Court of Appeal rejected the application of the “derivative injury rule” to limit the tort claim of the spouse of an injured worker who suffered an admitted workplace COVID injury,  The spouse was infected when the worker returned home from work, and later died from the COVID infection. Thus the exclusive remedy provision does not protect employers from these related tort claims.

Matilde Ek, a worker at a See’s distribution center in Southern California, contracted COVID-19 and apparently infected her 72-year-old husband, Arturo, who died. Ek said she worked on the See’s packing line without proper social distancing or other protections even though some workers were coughing, sneezing and showing other signs of COVID-19 infections.

She and her daughters sued See’s, alleging that since her workplace lacked sufficient safeguards against infection, the company is liable for his death.

See’s acknowledged that Ek’s illness was job-related but argued that since it was, the company was protected from liability for her husband’s death under the “exclusive remedy” doctrine.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Daniel M. Crowley refused to throw out Ek’s lawsuit, agreeing with Ek’s attorney that her husband’s death was a separate event from her workplace infection.

And the Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court in the published case of See’s Candies, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (2021).

Defendants argued plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the “derivative injury doctrine” (see Snyder v. Michael’s Stores, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 991, 1000 (Snyder)), under which “the WCA’s exclusivity provisions preempt not only those causes of action premised on a compensable workplace injury, but also those causes of action premised on injuries ‘ “collateral to or derivative of” ’ such an injury.’ (King v. CompPartners, Inc. (2018) 5 Cal.5th 1039, 1051 (King).) Among other things, this doctrine preempts third party claims “based on the physical injury or disability of the spouse,” such as loss of consortium or emotional distress. (Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148, 162-163.)

In rejecting this argument the Court of Appeal said that “Snyder approved of cases applying the doctrine to claims by family members for losses stemming from an employee’s disabling or lethal injury, such as wrongful death, loss of consortium, or emotional distress from witnessing a workplace accident. In contrast, the Supreme Court called into question a case applying the derivative injury doctrine outside these contexts based on causation alone.”

However, this decision is just a small part of the case which has yet to be litigated. The Court of Appeal noted “we have no occasion to decide whether defendants owed Mr. Ek a duty of care or whether plaintiffs can demonstrate that Mr. or Mrs. Ek contracted COVID-19 because of any negligence in defendants’ workplace, as opposed to another source during the COVID-19 pandemic. The parties have not raised these issues, and we decline to address them sua sponte.”