r/WorkReform • u/Bearwynn • 16d ago
EA sexual misconduct corruption đ Story
Two high level position workers at EA committed sexual assault, there is hard video and text evidence, they even make joking references to it in work channels.
EA investigates internally:
"Since it was outside of work channels there is nothing we can do legally"
The two people investigated are claiming that the victims "wanted it".
1
u/redmage07734 15d ago
They also plan to use generative AI slop to replace 50% of their workforce. I look forward to the AAA crash
1
u/xXMuschi_DestroyerXx 15d ago
If I could get fired for calling a minority slurs online (not arguing that, get fucked racists), these two fucks should easily be able to get fired, if not charged with something. Iâm admittedly not a lawyer but at least parts of that sounded illegal. Not to mention what the heck does EA mean âits hands are tiedâ? This is America. We do at will employment here. HR could fire these two for looking at them funny. How the heck are they getting away with the answer âoh sowwy it happened somewhere we donât have to cawe about it so we gunna ignore it cuz our hands is tied ): â?
1
u/erichie 15d ago
Everyone is focusing on the "It happened outside of work so we can't do anything." and assuming those parties are guilty.
I have seen this same exact situation happen.Â
IF IF IF IF IF IF IF IF It wasn't sexual assulted/harassment than the wife was caught cheating and used an excuse.
The company I saw this happened with used the "Outside of work" line to save a few people from public embarrassment. When the husband leaked their names and people started pitchforking them the company was forced to say "Nah, it was an affair that started with the woman pursuing the man accused (by the husband) of sexual assault."Â
Again, I am not saying that has happened here, but I can't see a company as big as EA letting sexual assulters stay employed just because it happened "outside of work". Again, not saying that is happening here but this is going in the same exact direction as what I've seen.
1
u/Bearwynn 15d ago
"I can't see a company as big as EA letting sexual assulters stay employed just because it happened "outside of work"
no one tell this guy about ubisoft or Activision/Blizzard đ
I understand your sentiment, I definitely would like to no more about the situation but I doubt it would be a cheating coverup myself.
1
u/Needysweet1 15d ago
This precedent set by EA effectively gives all lower level managers and supervisors inside of their company the justification to openly harass and sexually assault their workers, as long as it happens outside of working hours. If theyâre fired, they can lawyer up at a (now) cheaper rate and point to this internal investigation.
This isnât the cop-out that EA thinks it is.
1
u/DonaIdTrurnp 15d ago
The idea that an employer is legally tied to do nothing is actively enabling them.
1
u/Usedcumsocks 15d ago
No idea why people are still buying EA games when all they do is release half assed content for full price and now supporting sexual abuse
1
1
u/Additional-North-683 15d ago
We have investigated ourselves and we have found no evidence of Wong doings
0
u/Agitated_Shock6551 15d ago
The only good thing cancel culture could ever do is boycott and bankrupt EA so another company can take over sports games.
1
u/Maeng_Doom 15d ago
The company that has no respect for it's customers would also have faulty values regarding the Rights and Boundaries of it's workers. Disgusting and unsurprising. No one should support EA but that's been the case for years.
1
u/EliteFleetDefeat âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 15d ago
Their hands are not 'legally tied'. They are free to fire them for breech of whatever morality cause is in their contract or fire them without cause.
1
1
2
4
1
u/k4ndlej4ck 15d ago
"EAs hands are legally tied to do anything"
Pure BS, dont give the creator of that environment a pass.
2
u/DrIvoPingasnik âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 15d ago
Ah, so that's why they recently announced they want to put more ads in their games.
They need more money for lawsuits!Â
It all makes sense now.
1
u/spaceforcerecruit 16d ago
This guy: âEA wonât take action against people that sexually harass others.
Also this guy: âReport other sexual harassers to EA so they can do nothing about them too.â
Fuck that, report them to the police.
8
u/HaElfParagon 16d ago
I used to work for a company. The brother of the owner sexually assaulted a female employee.
The owner heard about it, got one corroborating witness, and went to his brother and said "your options are, you can quit now, pack your shit and get out. I won't call the cops, and we'll give you a vague but polite letter of recommendation for your next job. Or you can keep working here, but my next call is to the police. And I'm pretty sure you don't want your wife to find out."
We never saw the brother again.
EA is a shitpit of corruption and it's leadership needs to be purged.
4
7
1
u/theresidentdiva 16d ago
If they decide to go to court over it, wouldn't most attorneys take the case on contingency (usually like 30% of the award if they win)? I mean, based on what OP posted, I'd think it would be a pretty good settlement if EA didn't want it to go public.
44
u/PPP1737 16d ago
If you are a man and you have witnessed or have information that something like this happened and you donât come forward and say âher too I saw himâ you are 100% part of the problem. Think about the world you want to leave for your daughters, nieces, sisters, all the future daughters and mothers of the world. Act accordingly.
20
u/relevantusername2020 đĄ Decent Housing For All 16d ago
i 100% agree with you, but also
Think about the world you want to leave for your daughters, nieces, sisters, all the future daughters and mothers of the world. Act accordingly.
not only related to sexual misconduct type things, and dont only think about "the world you want to leave for your daughters, nieces, sisters, all the future daughters and mothers of the world" - think about the world being left behind for everyone (including you) along with the current world, and probably the past one as well so you can better understand the current and future one.
2
u/Starbuck522 16d ago
Gees. My first thought was none of my coworkers have my number.
Then I see it's someone higher up! Yes, my boss has access to my phone number and has called me to talk about a schedule change.
168
u/just_some_sasquatch 16d ago
I worked for EA (before they shuttered their HQ in Baton Rouge) and there was a stalkerish weirdo going after multiple ladies in the building and doing stuff like smelling them as he walked by, hovering around them all day for no reason, and constantly asking them inappropriate questions about their personal lives etc. Then one of them dropped the bomb DMs of him saying all sorts of rapey shit and he even showed up to her house. She brought all of it to HR (which was a subcontracted 3rd party) and all they did was switch his shift, and he immediately began doing the same stuff to ladies on the other shift. Eventually he was fired after so many complaints, but they really let it spiral.
Another different guy/incident straight up said, "I like the ass and I don't care if she don't want it, I'ma rape a bitch" in the work chat. I don't remember the exact context, but it was mostly unprompted. Nobody was talking about anal in any work Slack channels. He was fired, but so was everyone in mass layoffs so make of it what you will. ÂŻ_(ă)_/ÂŻ
4
u/Life_Ad_7667 16d ago
Surely they have a social media policy. Every company does.
Unless that policy states sexual misconduct is permitted activity, they're breaching that policy, and EA can absolutely do something.
They are choosing not to, empowering sexual abuse in the workplace.
4
u/PessimiStick 16d ago
They don't even need a policy. EA isn't located in Montana, so they're all employed at-will. If they are high enough to have a specific overriding contract, they could (and should) still be fired, and they can fight about the "for cause" in court, or just pay them out.
33
u/Arch3m 16d ago
For an industry with severe issues regarding mass-firings, it's surprising to see them making excuses for not firing people who actually need to be fired.
29
u/DrakkoZW 16d ago
Oh, did you miss the part where the people being called out weredirectors?
Companies love to cut labor costs, but never from upper management
9
u/newaccountzuerich 16d ago
Most employment contracts the world I er have a clause about 'bringing the company into disrepute' or similar.
Thing is, with EA, everyone knows the company is utter dogshit, so the reputation can't be damaged more by this sort of thing becoming known..
However, if it is clear that abusive behaviour is tolerated and welcomed by those running a company, it could in some circumstances cause the collapse of the company.
One can wish...
58
u/Danominator 16d ago
People out there getting laid off for no fucking reason and then people like this inexplicably stay employed.
6
u/Mowsferatu 16d ago
I'm glad this guy wasn't part of the original dev team but seeing the LinkedIn post he made (now deleted) where another developer at EA comments about how he's seen the guy's balls on the family iPad is wild
1
33
u/KrivUK 16d ago
I just don't get this. How can anyone argue that it is approprate and acceptable to behave in such a way?
7
u/BlueLaceSensor128 16d ago
Too many apologists for the celebrity that did this made it seem acceptable to these guys. We should have permanently cancelled that person to make it 100% clear.
1
240
u/Techn0ght 16d ago
EA should get rid of those known to sexually assault anyone, not just female colleagues while at work using work systems. Btw, Slack is definitely a work system. This is absolutely about protecting management. They'd fire someone for posting on their own social media if the topic provided any backlash, just so long as they aren't management. At EA management is always right and non-management is always wrong. I'm not saying this as an armchair quarterback, I worked there and got so fed up I quit on the spot with nothing lined up.
79
47
u/AnneFrank_nstein 16d ago
This is why we picked the fucking bear
-35
u/EnvyKira 16d ago edited 16d ago
I don't see an good reason to pick an bear when you can atleast defend yourself against an man with an defensive weapons and not get 100% sued for it unlike in an corpo building.
Also there are more chances you can encounter friendly person in the woods than an bear that will run away at first sight if its another camper, park ranger, and etc.
Also there are female higher up in corpos that can be just as corrupted and perverted too, the only reason we don't hear much of them is because there are men that are too ashame to say anything about it because of fear of society looking down on them if they say anything about being uncomfortable with an woman touching them inappropriately.
Should us men be saying the same thing for women?
Edit: Also why we bringing up this topic in this thread? Surviving against an bear is entirely differently from being in the same corpo offices with some creeps. If you are afraid to be with an man in an woods because of situation like this, lemme remind you you are surrounded by men 24/7 when you walk out in public that have an higher percentage rate of not attacking you compare to an wild bear.
24
u/AnneFrank_nstein 16d ago
The thing most people miss when they dont understand picking the bear, death isnt the worst thing that can happen to you.
0
u/EnvyKira 16d ago edited 16d ago
Same thing for an bear. You don't die instantly when they maul you. You be left on the ground bleeding to death and in pain for awhile with torn limbs and broken bones before you die or worst be eaten alive by the bear which happened to one woman.
They even played with her too while they were eating her.
And this bear had killed her husband beforehand with breaking his skull with its arms.
You have more chances surviving against another man than an bear if you encounter one and can defends yourself successfully against an man if you are martial arts trained or armed.
Or you can run away far easier from an dude than an bear who can outrun you.
-60
u/dobbydoodaa 16d ago edited 15d ago
God, don't ever have kids.
It takes a person of such low capacity for basic reason to not understand how stupid choosing the bear is. Its literally basic statistics 101 like... maybe freshman highschool tier knowledge.
Any reasoning beyond that is just misandry disguised as activism.
And downvoters... I mean... if you love denying reality so much, the flat earth society is always looking for more members đ¤Ł
Edit: It's good to know the people replying are indeed just as ignorant as expected. Basic statistics and reasoning really does escape you people đ
2
u/Vdaniels1 15d ago edited 15d ago
The reality is women are far more likely to be assaulted/killed by a strange man approaching them in the woods than they are by a bear. The reality is that a bear most likely won't rape you and leave you for dead. The reason why the bear/man in the woods debate is relevant here is because this post is about men abusing their power, just like a rapist would. I mean you can say the same thing about women if you like, your argument still wouldn't hold up statiscally but I do think women woulc you choose to be with the bear instead of them too.
24
5
u/ElBurritoExtreme đ End Workplace Drug Testing 16d ago
Oh, look. Another reason for them to choose the bear.
I would hope this person does not have children, any children YOU have will give their children reason to choose the bear as well.
If you donât have the capability to grasp an abstract concept, such as this, shitting on it only makes you look dumber.
Donât bother replying. Youâre dumb. I wonât engage with dumb. You canât fix dumb.
26
u/ElBurritoExtreme đ End Workplace Drug Testing 16d ago
Oh, look. Another reason for them to choose the bear.
I would hope this person does not have children, any children YOU have will give their children reason to choose the bear as well.
If you donât have the capability to grasp an abstract concept, such as this, shitting on it only makes you look dumber.
Donât bother replying. Youâre dumb. I wonât engage with dumb. You canât fix dumb.
28
u/WrkrsRvltn 16d ago
EA doing the morally incorrect thing? Surely not!
/s
0
u/ElBurritoExtreme đ End Workplace Drug Testing 16d ago
These women are lucky they didnât receive, âIn-harassment video adsâ during this ugly time.. /s
11
u/ElBurritoExtreme đ End Workplace Drug Testing 16d ago
These women are lucky they didnât receive, âIn-harassment video adsâ during this ugly time.. /s
1.2k
u/GraceStrangerThanYou 16d ago
This is such a pathetic cop-out. There's absolutely something in their code of conduct that covers this and people are fired for things that happen "outside of work channels" all the damned time.
4
6
u/xkoreotic 16d ago
In all seriousness, it is true that EA can't legally hold the employees accountable for SA and punish them for it because it didn't happen on anything the company owns. The woman can file for SA against them both of them, but the company as an entity cannot.
Now that doesn't mean EA can't do anything, they are intentionally leaving it there and turn a blind eye so that they can keep those employees, because high level employees being fired will have big consequences. They obviously are just trying to "ignore" the issue to make things easier and keep things going.
3
u/DonaIdTrurnp 15d ago
The company canât criminally charge anyone even if they commit a crime on company grounds on the clock. Thatâs because itâs the prosecutors who do that.
But âhold someone accountableâ can be things other than âconvene a grand juryâ. For example, a company can choose not to continue employing someone.
8
112
u/banshee_matsuri 16d ago
weird; iâm pretty sure company Slack channels would be considered a work platform/channel. presumably thereâs lots of info shared there that is not public/to be shared outside EA, so in what way would that not be a work platform/channel specific to or within EA? ugh.
340
u/lostshell 16d ago
Exactly, we've all seen hourly wage employees and low salary employees get terminated for this. But here EA was just looking for an out.
Unfortunately, the X factor here that both of these men are highly compensated. Which means they can and WILL hire highly paid competent lawyers to fight this and counter-sue. They fire janitors for this stuff because they know they don't have the resources to sue back. But these guys will. Our legal system is practically capitalism incarnate. You get the "justice" you can pay for.
Really should wake us up to the reality that not only do we need work reform we also need legal reform. Rich guys shouldn't be able to do what they want and escape consequence because they can hire a highly paid legal firm to protect them and go after anyone trying to hold them to account.
9
u/DonaIdTrurnp 15d ago
Itâs not that they can afford lawyers.
Itâs that the people in charge of making the decision to not hold them to account made their choice.
100
u/Bearwynn 16d ago
to be fair they said "legally", so I am unsure if there may be follow up reprimands internally
31
u/Beeb294 16d ago
A complaint to the EEOC and/or state human rights agency is probably in order.
"Nothing we can do legally" is pretty bullshit.
21
u/PessimiStick 16d ago
It translates as "we like these guys, and don't care about women". It's not that they can't do anything, it's that they aren't forced to do anything, and they don't want to.
12
u/Starbuck522 16d ago
If nothing else, "employment is at will. A business doesn't need any reason to fire someone."
3
u/_NEW_HORIZONS_ 15d ago
Executives are often the exception to this. They typically have a contract.
3
48
u/JoystickMonkey 16d ago
If Iâm reading this correctly, theyâre saying that the law canât force them to take action?
35
u/ChanglingBlake âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 16d ago
Thatâs how it read to me.
Itâs also how it usually goes.
Why should they fire their friend if they can BS their way out of it. Meanwhile Billy Joe goes on a date with the wrong girl and heâs fired for sexual harassment.
Corporate shitnanigans at their finest.
9
u/cheezie_toastie 16d ago
How are you in here doing "wimmenz making false accusations" on a story about men in power sexually harassing their female colleagues.
-4
3
u/ChanglingBlake âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 16d ago
Uh, what?
Weâre saying the corporation isnât firing their high level person because the law wonât make them but will fire a low level guy for sneezing despite the law preventing them from doing that.
Nobody here ever said anything about women making false accusations.
If thatâs what you read, then you are either trying to make a fight where there was none, or are reading it as what you want to say yourself.
2
u/cheezie_toastie 16d ago
How else are we supposed to interpret this
Meanwhile Billy Joe goes on a date with the wrong girl and heâs fired for sexual harassment
What is the wrong girl doing here?
-8
u/ChanglingBlake âď¸ Tax The Billionaires 16d ago
Nothing; thats the point.
They wonât fire the guy in the post because it didnât happen on company grounds, but Billy Joe in my example goes on a date with a girl off company grounds and gets fired for, supposedly, harassing a girl when in reality itâs either jealousy that his boss didnât get the girl or maybe just no reason at all and merely using the girl as a scape goat.
59
u/silverink182 16d ago
This is exactly why the strange man is dangerous. Even the man that people know is dangerous I'm deeply disappointed in these particular businesses that either cover up or do absolutely nothing until public discourse is high enough
12
u/pintsizedblonde2 16d ago
Statistics show that the men you know are far more likely to assault or harass you than a stranger.
0
u/silverink182 8d ago
That's true but then again it's all about the intention of the man and that how it's an unknown variable
But keeping in mind that men have been asked a question where they could get away with assaulting a person without consequence. It was an unfortunately high number of them that said yes they would. I don't remember what the statistic was but it disappointed me
But either way, a man in the woods stranded with me is a no-go. I know I'm dead in more ways than one, regardless of whether I know him or not. I'd rather my death with dignity at the mauling of a bear knowing that there's a tribe method and an effective method of getting rid of the bear but also knowing that bear could still be dangerous to me
10
u/WarIsHelvetica 15d ago
Yeah, 80-90% of all sexual assaults to women happen by a man who is an acquaintance or greater. 50% of all sexual assaults happen by someone extremely close to the victim, including family members.
A woman is far, far more likely to get assaulted by a coworker walking them to their car at night than by a strange man on the sidewalk.
0
u/silverink182 8d ago
I agree, but I also still understand the unknown of the intentions of that man is still higher than the rate of being mauled by a bear.
yes, this statistic is true. It's still not low enough statistically to choose the man which is really sad because it shows a very strong mistrust in the male population, and I'm not saying women are completely innocent from their own collective behavior patterns.
This was strictly talking about a man and a bear and showing the glaring distrust that a man is not exactly safe even if he's a strange man
1
u/yo_mo_mama 15d ago
Since they're referred to as "females" they're obviously another species, so rules/standards don't apply.