Riot Games clears their CEO of misconduct allegations

Mazzle · Mar 16, 2021

CN Sexual harassment

Riot Games CEO Nicolo Laurent has been under fire since January this year, after former executive assistant Sharon O’Donnell filed a lawsuit against Laurent because
of hostile work environment and sexual advances aginst O-Donnell. Riot began an internal investigation at January 8th with the help of a thrid-party company and concluded that no
sanctions are reccomended.
Laurent is also continuing to employ multiple head executives who have ben accused of sexism and harassment. This all follows reports from back in 2018 when Kotaku
reported on a toxic work environement at Riot Games, which also lead to protest from employees in 2019.

While being cleared from their internal investigations, the lawsuit is still going on, but Laurent is dismissing the allegations:

But he won't have to fear anything from Riot nor Tencent at this time and stage:

Since 2018, when we revamped our internal investigation process, we’ve used a rigorous, outside investigation process to ensure that any allegations against our senior leaders are investigated thoroughly and without bias — and that those investigations involving our senior-most executives are overseen by a Special Committee of Riot’s Board of Directors. In the past, we’ve parted ways with senior leaders when we’ve validated inappropriate or discriminatory behavior. Following the recent allegations of misconduct raised against Riot and our CEO, we were fully prepared to do so again.

The Special Committee of our Board of Directors has concluded that after review of the results of the investigation, and based on everything they know today, there is no evidence that Nicolo harassed, discriminated, or retaliated against Ms. O'Donnell. The Special Committee has also expressed its full confidence in Nicolo’s leadership, that no action against him is warranted, and that he will continue to operate as CEO.

We’re grateful to the 3000+ Rioters for their patience and resilience during this time. We know it hasn’t been easy to wait for the results. We will use every legal avenue at our disposal to see this case through and ensure that Riot and Nicolo are absolved.

It seems to be, that Riot Games still has lot of dirty laundry and that not enough has changed to really protect women, minorities and secure a healthy work environment

SOURCES:

Riots statement: https://www.riotgames.com/en/news/special-committee-review
News article on WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2021/03/16/nicolo-laurent-lawsuit-riot-games/
Lawsuit background infos: https://www.wired.com/story/riot-games-ceo-culture-complaints/

---------------------

2018 Kotaku article about the work environment: https://www.wired.com/story/riot-games-ceo-culture-complaints/
Employee walkout in 2019: https://www.wired.com/story/riot-games-ceo-culture-complaints/

PlanetSmasher · Mar 16, 2021

"We've investigated ourselves, and we've found that nothing is wrong. Thank you."

rsfour · Mar 16, 2021

Riot games investigating themselves.

LegalEagleMike · Mar 16, 2021

Totally clears the CEO. Thank you!

Tagyhag · Mar 16, 2021

PlanetSmasher said:
"We've investigated ourselves, and we've found that nothing is wrong. Thank you."

Exactly what I was going to say. That 3rd party was just a smokescreen.

When you keep multiple executives with multiple allegations, you are hiding something.

RockmanBN · Mar 16, 2021

SunBroDave · Mar 16, 2021

LegalEagleMike said:
Totally clears the CEO, thank you!

.

Charpunk · Mar 16, 2021

What a fucking joke

Strike · Mar 16, 2021

PlanetSmasher said:
"We've investigated ourselves, and we've found that nothing is wrong. Thank you."

.

lusca_bueno · Mar 16, 2021

Oh how surprising, who would guess that a company would investigate itself and reach the conclusion that nothing is wrong! Crazy times!

Silly Buck · Mar 16, 2021

"Riot has always created a positive and safe space for employees"
Kotaku article hits
*reviewed and enhanced policies and wide-ranging, fundamental changes to the company*

If you already had a positive and safe space, fundamental changes to the company wouldn't be necessary.

The Smoking Man · Mar 16, 2021

How do people even fall for shit like this? On what planet is a corporation going to risk their share value by revealing their CEO is a POS.

SirNinja · Mar 16, 2021

"After a thorough investigation, we have determined that acknowledging our CEO as a sexual predator would be detrimental to our share prices."

SilkySm00th · Mar 16, 2021

"Well we asked him and he was 'Bro I swear!' so these meritless charges are dismissed"

I sometimes wonder what kind of people this performative shit is supposed work on. Does taking the time to pat themselves on the back while pretending it's an investigation fit them into a new and comfy tax loophole or something? Is this kind of thing the bare minimum you can do to avoid some specific labor law or something?

This just seems like such an expensive way for a company to say 'Fuck you."

Robinson · Mar 16, 2021

Isn't the manchild who farts on people still employed there?

Mazzle · Mar 16, 2021

Robinson said:
Isn't the manchild who farts on people still employed there?

Scott Gelb, COO auf Riot Games got suspended in 2018 https://www.reuters.com/article/esports-lol-riot-gelb-idUSKBN1OD0GS but is still COO
at Riot games, as you can see here: https://www.riotgames.com/en/who-we-are/riot-games-leadership/scott-gelb

Primus · Mar 16, 2021

Well I'm convinced! Self-investigation always brings out the truth!

Trash.

Doctor_Thomas · Mar 16, 2021

Source: "Bro, trust me."

DailyCalmSpirit · Mar 16, 2021

Tagyhag said:
That 3rd party was just a smokescreen.

I agree that investigating yourself will solve nothing, but, is there something fishy about the third party they used?

Genuinely asking because A) I honestly don't know, and, B) is there another way this should have been investigated?

RailWays · Mar 16, 2021

Nothing says impartial like a self-investigation

vixolus · Mar 16, 2021

DailyCalmSpirit said:
I agree that investigating yourself will solve nothing, but, is there something fishy about the third party they used?

Genuinely asking because A) I honestly don't know, and, B) is there another way this should have been investigated?

I'm curious, too. A third party conducted the investigation and Riot paid for it (who else is supposed to pay a third party investigation? Tax payers?). Is the problem that the Committee reviewed the results and made their recommendation rather than the third party? I don't know.

JinnAxel · Mar 16, 2021

I'd be more convinced of the validity of the report if it were made public while redacting sensitive information. I'd rather want to believe the investigation was impartial but can't if I can't actually read it. Anything besides that just makes riot look like they investigated themselves, instead of actually being hands off the investigation.

ZugZug123 · Mar 16, 2021

I work for a company that fired the CEO after misconduct :/ it's not that difficult if you take things seriously and no CEO is irreplaceable.

Riot just did not take this seriously which means any "change" they advertise so the public will see them in a better light is not for real, everyone working at a company takes clues from the higher ups, so the people who were the harassers will carry on and the victims or potential victims will just shut up and either leave or do their work quietly.

dark_prinny · Mar 16, 2021

kodax_shc · Mar 16, 2021

Apparently, as long as there is no 'evidence' it never happened. Case closed

makonero · Mar 16, 2021

sedael · Mar 16, 2021

DailyCalmSpirit said:
I agree that investigating yourself will solve nothing, but, is there something fishy about the third party they used?

Genuinely asking because A) I honestly don't know, and, B) is there another way this should have been investigated?

Not speaking on the process overall or anything beyond the specific third party they used, but Seyfarth Shaw, the external law firm Riot retained to do the investigation, is a widely respected law firm with a long history of labor law work. They are exactly the type of firm you would go to for a competent external investigation.

Totally reasonable for people to have whatever issues with the way the board handled the report and such, but Seyfarth Shaw is a completely reasonable third party for Riot to have run the investigation.

Deleted member 2441 · Mar 17, 2021

For anyone still interested in this case, some court documents from the defence were tweeted out yesterday that are worth considering:

It really doesn't make for good reading for the accuser. On-record accusations of witness tampering on the plaintiff's part, including bribery and intimidation, lies about their references and job history, using the company credit card for personal expenses that weren't paid back, previous frivolous litigation.

I don't know if Riot's current CEO is guilty or if he's a harasser (I worked there but never with him and not when he was CEO), but it does seem based off of this information that there are serious credibility concerns with the plaintiff.

It would be pretty disgusting if this panned out to be a false accusation. It does no good for real victims.

Harmonius · Mar 17, 2021

Costy said:
For anyone still interested in this case, some court documents from the defence were tweeted out yesterday that are worth considering:

It really doesn't make for good reading for the accuser. On-record accusations of witness tampering on the plaintiff's part, including bribery and intimidation, lies about their references and job history, using the company credit card for personal expenses that weren't paid back, previous frivolous litigation.

I don't know if Riot's current CEO is guilty or if he's a harasser (I worked there but never with him and not when he was CEO), but it does seem based off of this information that there are serious credibility concerns with the plaintiff.

It would be pretty disgusting if this panned out to be a false accusation. It does no good for real victims.

None of the bolded is relevant to claims regarding the CEO comitting sexual misconduct! It doesn’t matter if the person lied about references/job history, mishandled funds, or has previous frivolous litigation. The Witness tampering might, but the rest of the listed comes off as “Well we shouldn’t trust this person at all.”

shitty people still deserve the same credibility as decent people when it comes to matters of investigations regarding their claims of sexual harassment.

Deleted member 2441 · Mar 17, 2021

Harmonius said:
None of the bolded is relevant to claims regarding the CEO comitting sexual misconduct! It doesn’t matter if the person lied about references/job history, mishandled funds, or has previous frivolous litigation. The Witness tampering might, but the rest of the listed comes off as “Well we shouldn’t trust this person at all.”

shitty people still deserve the same credibility as decent people when it comes to matters of investigations regarding their claims of sexual harassment.

Of course, and I haven't made any judgments on whether the guy is guilty or not. He could be a complete scumbag. But reading the testimonies of the people who were intimidated by the plaintiff and "encouraged" with bribes to join this specific lawsuit, makes me question that person's credibility pretty significantly.

I mean they basically say she and her representatives told them to make stuff up, and that she gave out their personal details to journalists and other less than savoury people who basically threatened them.

This one doesn't seem as cut and dry as people seem to think it is.

vixolus · Mar 17, 2021

Harmonius said:
None of the bolded is relevant to claims regarding the CEO comitting sexual misconduct! It doesn’t matter if the person lied about references/job history, mishandled funds, or has previous frivolous litigation. The Witness tampering might, but the rest of the listed comes off as “Well we shouldn’t trust this person at all.”

shitty people still deserve the same credibility as decent people when it comes to matters of investigations regarding their claims of sexual harassment.

I do understand where you're coming from about it not being relevant, and yes people deserve the same credibility. What it does is establish a pattern to the court. One thing left out of the other user's post, but is included in the filings, is that the plaintiff never used any of the avenues to report misbehavior over the years, there's no evidence in any texts or emails of the language she brought up, and that "Plaintiff attempted to intervene on behalf of a male employee being terminated because she was concerned that Riot was too quick to terminate men based on harassment accusations. "

I know someone taking action or thinking in the past doesn't just free them up to being a victim later on, but again, it just doesn't look good to the plaintiff when there isn't any consistency in the timeline.

Senator Toadstool · Mar 17, 2021

lusca_bueno said:
Oh how surprising, who would guess that a company would investigate itself and reach the conclusion that nothing is wrong! Crazy times!

Multiple companies have fired executives after complaints after me too...

sedael said:
Not speaking on the process overall or anything beyond the specific third party they used, but Seyfarth Shaw, the external law firm Riot retained to do the investigation, is a widely respected law firm with a long history of labor law work. They are exactly the type of firm you would go to for a competent external investigation.

Totally reasonable for people to have whatever issues with the way the board handled the report and such, but Seyfarth Shaw is a completely reasonable third party for Riot to have run the investigation.

yeah they're not shady

srtrestre · Mar 17, 2021

well I guess that's okay then

>>

NexusCell · Mar 17, 2021

Seems like in this specific instance there are some significant credibility concerns with the accuser, and not in the “X did something bad couple years ago” sort of way.

Night · Mar 17, 2021

It appears the court documents describe the plaintiff attempting to get others involved in a frivolous lawsuit against the defendant.

Thorn · Mar 17, 2021

Yeah at first I was full "We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" but those court documents are making me start to think that this might not be as clear cut.

After Shari's lawsuit was filed, I received many calls, texts, and messages from journalists [...] I lost my job with another employer because of all the harassment that I received from journalists [...] I know that it must have been Shari that gave out my number to journalists [...] on February 16, 2021 Shari called me [...] She told me that she either gave my number to journalists or her attorney

I want to know who these journalists are, that shit is not okay.

NexusCell · Mar 17, 2021

Thorn said:
Yeah at first I was full "We investigated ourselves and found nothing wrong" but those court documents are making me start to think that this might not be as clear cut.

I want to know who these journalists are, that shit is not okay.

Not sure why journalists would contact someone who hasn't been established to be related to the case. Shitty journalists I guess.

Harmonius said:
None of the bolded is relevant to claims regarding the CEO comitting sexual misconduct! It doesn’t matter if the person lied about references/job history, mishandled funds, or has previous frivolous litigation. The Witness tampering might, but the rest of the listed comes off as “Well we shouldn’t trust this person at all.”

shitty people still deserve the same credibility as decent people when it comes to matters of investigations regarding their claims of sexual harassment.

The witness tampering is a huge red flag. Especially trying the intimidate or bribe outside witnesses to support the very lawsuit your filing.

DyslexicAlucard · Mar 17, 2021

spootime · Mar 17, 2021

Harmonius said:
None of the bolded is relevant to claims regarding the CEO comitting sexual misconduct! It doesn’t matter if the person lied about references/job history, mishandled funds, or has previous frivolous litigation. The Witness tampering might, but the rest of the listed comes off as “Well we shouldn’t trust this person at all.”

shitty people still deserve the same credibility as decent people when it comes to matters of investigations regarding their claims of sexual harassment.

Yeah threatening witnesses with violence miiiiiight be relevant to the veracity of her claims.

Let's examine what is actually being said in these filed documents though:

Exhibit A (claims from first witness):
- Witness with close working relationship with RIOT CEO (sounds like a nanny or cleaner of some sort), claims RIOT CEO would never do this
- Claims Sharon approached her and asked for her help with suit. Witness says no.
- Claims Sharon proceeds to leak her number to the press and call her over the next few months using blocked numbers.
- Witness loses job due to harassment from journalists/media
- Says that Sharon told her "lets file the lawsuit together, dont you know if you join the lawsuit you can make $500,000"

Exhibit B (claims from second witness):
- Witness with close working relationship to RIOT CEO
- Approached by Sharon to join lawsuit to make money, declines
- Receives multiple threatening phone calls telling her to join the suit
- One caller says he knows where she lives

Exhibit C (claims from riot):
- Riot claims Sharon previously attempted to blackmail multiple film producers by threatening to email the chinese government (?) if she wasn't paid within one business day (her attorney quit after this)
- Solicited other employees to lie about sexual harassment by CEO in exchange for a payout
- Spent 10k a month on vacations / luxury goods with a company card
- Lied about being Larry Ellisons main assistant for 8 years, which got her the (6 figure) job in the first place
- Apparently runs multiple shell companies to dodge taxes while employed by riot?
- She had a dozen HR complaints in less than a year

Even disregarding riots claims, which they almost certainly have the receipts for since they were submitted to the court, the testimony of the two witnesses says a lot.

Wolfapo · Mar 17, 2021

Harmonius said:
None of the bolded is relevant to claims regarding the CEO comitting sexual misconduct! It doesn’t matter if the person lied about references/job history, mishandled funds, or has previous frivolous litigation. The Witness tampering might, but the rest of the listed comes off as “Well we shouldn’t trust this person at all.”

shitty people still deserve the same credibility as decent people when it comes to matters of investigations regarding their claims of sexual harassment.

I don't know. A person's background is relevant to any case and if someone is believable or not.
That's part of it. No situation exists in a vacuum.

Same applies to Riot Games as a company. They have a shitty culture and they are trying to fix it (and according to some articles from 2019, one year after the 2018 report, it seems to be improving). This just doesn't happen immediately and takes time.
So, of course every accusation should be taken seriously, especially considering the past, but at the same time, it is also important to see what has been done and setup at the company to actually make sure victims can report any misconduct. And it seems the system is there, seeing the complaints about the assistant being piled up.

I am pretty sure there is a lot of evidence that support the CEO's story, like E-Mails, texts etc., plus witnesses.
In the end, no one knows what exactly happened, but evidence points a grim picture for the assistant.

PS9 · Mar 17, 2021

I'd also like to take this moment to clear myself of any wrongdoing.

Wolfapo · Mar 17, 2021

PS9 said:
I'd also like to take this moment to clear myself of any wrongdoing.

If you are defending yourself, that's your goal.
And they did hire an external law firm to investigate.
What else should they do?

Deleted member 2441 · Mar 17, 2021

Ultimately the outcome of this shouldn't change the fact that we need to believe victims first and foremost, but in cases where there is evidence like this that has to be considered too.

I didn't think there would be evidence like this when I saw Riot's post exonerating him, witness tampering is obviously really serious.

Either way I hope it doesn't stop other women coming forward or cast doubt in those cases because of one potential bad actor.

Deleted member 2441 · Mar 17, 2021

Double post, but for balance the plaintiff submitted more information in a hearing today.

Riot Games has criticized plaintiff Sharon O’Donnell for spreading “falsehoods” in her latest filing, which included new sexual discrimination allegations made by the plaintiff, the company told Daily Esports.

Today’s filing, which was in direct response to Riot Games’ own rebuttal against the plaintiff, detailed fresh allegations of sexual misconduct by Riot’s CEO Nicolo Laurent. One unnamed witness, in this case, supposedly described two incidents with O’Donnell in which Laurent acted inappropriately.

The discrimination allegations against Riot’s CEO detailed in the filing were not made by O’Donnell, contrary to her original complaint made in January. Instead, the plaintiff acknowledged a supposed meeting between her and the first witness, to which she described alleged incidents of sexual misconduct by Laurent to O’Donnell.

In Pacific Palisades, an “incident” allegedly took place in which Laurent supposedly “touched her breast.” While another incident allegedly took place in Deer Valley where Laurent “brushed up against her and she felt his privates when he did so,” the filing states.

Riot's response:

These allegations can be added to “her ever-growing list of salacious claims,” Riot told Daily Esports in a statement. “Plaintiff’s legal strategy, as seen in her most recent filing, appears to be designed to spread additional falsehoods to embarrass our CEO and the Company.

“Now, after her motivation and credibility have been called into question, the plaintiff has responded with new allegations attacking our CEO that directly contradict the detailed and signed declarations provided by the individuals to which she refers,” Riot said, calling the new allegations “demonstrably false in light of the signed declarations.”

An interesting titbit, since we were wondering to which journalists the plaintiff gave the phone numbers of witnesses:

One of the witnesses, whom O’Donnell said she worked with, allegedly told O’Donnell she would be fired from her position due to hospitalization from exhaustion. Although she is not mentioned, O’Donnell noted she could be used as a source for a story by U.S.-based magazine Wired.

Potentially Cecilia D'Anastasio who works for Wired now and did the original reporting on Riot's history of sexism?

JinnAxel · Mar 17, 2021

Seems weird to make additional allegations as a response to accusations of being dishonest. Wouldn't it be best to lay everything on the table from the get go?

Costy said:
An interesting titbit, since we were wondering to which journalists the plaintiff gave the phone numbers of witnesses:

Potentially Cecilia D'Anastasio who works for Wired now and did the original reporting on Riot's history of sexism?

Seems weird to mention this considering it doesn't seem related to sexual harassment? Sucks, and should be followed through in its own suit though. Is being fired due to prolonged hospitalization legal in California?

MysticalChaos · Mar 18, 2021

Riot? Isn't that the company that has a Chief Technical Officer that farts on people in meetings? Wait...they make games too?

Riot Games clears their CEO of misconduct allegations

Visited by Knack - One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

User requested account closure

One Winged Slayer

User requested account closure

User requested account closure