WotC Being Sued By Magic: the Gathering Judges

Wizards of the Coast, which, as you likely know, produces the enormous collectible card game Magic: The Gathering (as well as RPGs like D&D) is on the end of a class action lawsuit filed by a small group of M:tG judges (Adam Shaw, Peter Golightly, Justin Turner, and Joshua Stansfield). The suit alleges that WotC failed to pay minimum wage, provide meal or rest breaks, reimburse business expenses, maintain accurate payroll records, and more. M:tG judges are volunteers, but the filing appears to allege that the degree of supervision and control exercised by WotC was enough to create an employer-employee relationship instead. The M:tG judges are demanding a jury trial.

Click on the image for the full 23-page document
​

 

[Maxperson]

I've just been chasing my tail around this idea of suing as unethical. It's baffling to the point where I've now got a healthy suspicion that the others might just have been having a go and winding me up.

It's not that suing itself is unethical, it's that the laws in this country have gone so far into the corner of plaintiffs that many situations that allow you to sue are unethical.

There are many situations where the plaintiff just plain should have known that being injured was possible, the plaintiff knowingly and willingly accepts being injured, says he is okay with it, and yet the law allows him to sue and recover from the defendant. That's unethical.

If you didn't know and were taken advantage of, or forced, etc. That's when it's ethical to sue.

These volunteer judges knew what was going on. They agreed to it. They weren't forced. Nobody made them get on an airplane and fly someone where else to stay in a WotC room. They volunteered.

 

[Obryn]

In this day and age it's generally about grubbing money however you can. Sometimes it's about truth. Much more often* it's just someone using the system to try and get money when they really don't deserve it.

* (citation needed)

Also, there's a fantastic documentary on Netflix you should check out called "Hot Coffee."

(In other news, I am super busy. If this is still going when it settles down, I'll pop back in.)

 

[LordEntrails]

Heh. You repeatedly say things like "prove". Isn't that why we sue people? Isn't the whole point of suing someone to get at the truth of the matter using an impartial judge to determine if wrongdoing was done or not?

Wouldn't that make it thus ethical to sue someone who you believe has wronged you?

Ok, don't prove it. Provide any type of substantiation to your claim that WotC lied to anyone about the judges program.

You are writing statements that make completely unfounded claims. The lawsuit does not state that WotC lied. I have yet to see a link to any source, even unreliable ones, that is of the opinion WotC lied.

Stop supporting your arguments with allegations that no one has made. That is if you want anyone to take your arguments seriously.

 

[LordEntrails]

...

I've just been chasing my tail around this idea of suing as unethical. It's baffling to the point where I've now got a healthy suspicion that the others might just have been having a go and winding me up.

Really? This surprises me. So you can not think of any situation in which one might be legally entitled to sue someone, but to do so is morally or ethically wrong?

Is this because you are not aware of any such situations, or because you believe the right to sue mandates a moral or ethical justification for such action? Does that extend to that whatever is legal is moral/ethical?

 

[LordEntrails]

But is it harm? what about justice? a lot of changes and improvements happened because someone sued. This kind of abuses might not sound like a lot to you, but in my country they lead to a war that lasted more than ten years and killed a lot of people. Suing is way more civilized and not harming. -it is not like they are patent trolls, they seem to have a genuine grievance-

I'm not sure what harm from my statements are being discussed.
Yes, a lot of good has come from lawsuits. In our country, so has a lot of harm. We (the USA) are fortunate in that we have such a system to address grievances. But it does not mean that every grievance should be addressed in such a manner.

Take a look at these links, and see if you can start to understand why one can consider many lawsuits to be frivolous or harmful;
-The Examiner
- The Economist
- Answers.com

But is it reasonable? should only omniscient international law experts be allowed to be parents? Everything done in my country (I'm not American nor live in there) interacts with the laws of some other more powerful country and who is going to expect a toy company to do something like that?

Where did I ever imply such a thing? Just because a parent IS legally responsible (according to US law), doesn't mean they need to be a lawyer (though with the implications from my links above, its not such a stretch in the USA).

Is it reasonable to expect a parent to be conversant in the law? Depends upon if the laws are reasonable. But I don't care to debate if US laws are reasonable. Not the point of this thread or of interest to me.

 

[Beleriphon]

I worry about what this will do in the future. IMO, WotC is already over protective in many legal aspects. Kind of hard to blame them for such a stance when people go and do something like this. Will we now have fewer "official" cons? More legal paperwork for con administrators to process? Less support of the gaming community? A withdrawl from DMsG because an author might claim to be an employee?

Doubtful on all fronts. Worst that will happen admission prices or costs for MtG will go up. DMsG will never happen since its at best work for hire, and the license to use the stuff is very, very clear on the nature of the relationship between WotC, One Bookshelf and the authors.

Even if the judges are in the right legally, I'm not sure I could ever sand with them morally. They chose to become involved in something. They knew the expectations and the the rewards for doing so. If they did not feel that the rewards were worth it, then why did they agree to it? All they had to do was stop acting as judges. That simple. I can't see any viability in a claim that this was a "job" for them that they needed in order to pay their rent or buy food. They were doing this because they WANTED to. If they felt they were not being treated fairly, all they had to do was walk away.

And this is reason why they're suing. Because if they are de facto employees being treated as an employee, but getting none of the benefits is in and of itself unfair.

So, regardless if they were de-facto employees or not. Their selfish actions only hurt all of us at their expense. If they wanted to help all of us, then they could have started a boycott by all the judges that agreed with them. And if then the community could have chosen to support them, or not.

Those don't work without the legal recourse to actually support the boycott/strike action.

 

[LordEntrails]

I agree that viewing the suing MtG judges as unethical is a bit warped, and I hope their lawsuit is successful.

However, I wouldn't characterize WotC's role as lying to the judges, or somehow willfully taking advantage of them. Gaming cons, competitions, and tournaments have a long history of being volunteer run, because gaming is an industry that started at the grass-roots level and volunteerism is really the only way gaming tournaments could have been run in the old days. WotC and MtG has long outgrown that, IMO, and shouldn't be using volunteers anymore to run their tournaments . . . but for them to continue doing things as they always have is somewhat understandable, until it's made clear to them this isn't going to work in today's environment.

My assumption is that the judges suing WotC realized that the responsibilities they were given, and how they were treated by WotC, really put them in the category of unpaid employee rather than volunteer, and so most likely DID approach WotC first to try and change that situation. WotC has been using volunteers since day one, and why give that up to spend more money paying people fairly, especially when volunteers are likely somewhat plentiful? The judges likely saw that as putting profits over people (as do I), while WotC likely saw things differently. I doubt folks at WotC feel like they are taking advantage of the judges (at least, I hope not!). So, to court we go! Two opposing parties, both feeling in the right, happen all the time in court battles, of course.

Hopefully WotC will see the light, either through a settlement or forced by court order. This WILL change how cons and tournaments are run, but mostly on the highest levels. Cons and tournaments that need to continue relying on volunteers (because they are small-time) will need to be careful how much responsibility they put on their volunteers, and larger cons/tournaments will need to step up and actually hire some folks to shoulder the enormous amount of work required.

This is a good, nuanced and thoughtful response. You make distinctions between what you think might have happened and what has been claimed by the plaintiffs.

If it's determined that WotC was treating the judges unfairly or illegally (two separate issues), then I hope they will change.

Though, I believe it is very likely that the changes if a result of illegal policies will not be for the benefit of the community as a whole. It is not like WotC has an unlimited pool of money in which to run/sponsor cons. If they become more expensive to run than they generate in revenue, or if the profit margins are not deemed sufficient, then they will be dropped. If/when the cost of running a con increases, it is likely that something will change. And I don't see any reason to believe that those changes will benefit the greater community (though I agree they will benefit some judges, maybe).

 

[LordEntrails]

...
And this is reason why they're suing. Because if they are de facto employees being treated as an employee, but getting none of the benefits is in and of itself unfair.

Disagree, it might be illegal, but I have yet to see a fair/moral/ethical justification be supported. (Not saying one couldn't be made, but we don't know what WotC knew or intended, or when they knew it or made such intentions).

Those don't work without the legal recourse to actually support the boycott/strike action.

Oh? And support for such a blanket statement?

 

[Maxperson]

* (citation needed)

Also, there's a fantastic documentary on Netflix you should check out called "Hot Coffee."

(In other news, I am super busy. If this is still going when it settles down, I'll pop back in.)

I don't have a citation so much as a lot of personal experience. I spent 4 years working at a law firm that did wage and hour class and PAGA actions. I can't tell you how many people called and asked, "My boss yelled at me and it made me angry. Can I get money?" or "I got fired. Can I get money for that?"

People these days are lining up to get money from employers any way they can.

 

[Hussar]

In this day and age it's generally about grubbing money however you can. Sometimes it's about truth. Much more often it's just someone using the system to try and get money when they really don't deserve it.

Yeah, I'm not really buying it. There's far too many presumptions being made here. "Someone yelled at me, can I get money" might be a real question, but, for 99% of the time, the answer is, "no". End of story. It's not like someone lobotomized lawyers and judges en mass.

Disagree, it might be illegal, but I have yet to see a fair/moral/ethical justification be supported. (Not saying one couldn't be made, but we don't know what WotC knew or intended, or when they knew it or made such intentions).



Oh? And support for such a blanket statement?

But, again, isn't that for the courts to decide? If WotC was doing something that violates labour laws, then isn't suing them the responsible thing to do? And, isn't it for the courts to decide if WotC was, in fact, doing something that violates labour laws? After all, if the Magic judges just walk away, and WotC is, in fact, doing something wrong, nothing prevents them from continuing to violate labour laws.

Now, if it was a minor technicality and WotC wasn't aware of it, that will also come out. OTOH, if WotC was fully aware of the violation, that should come out too. And, it should come out that WotC didn't do anything wrong. There are multiple possible results here. But, none of those results would be possible if no one actually stands up and says, "Hey, this is wrong".

Now, just saying, "this is wrong" doesn't make it so. Of course. But, again, that's for a judge to decide, not you or me. None of us has the slightest clue of the actual facts of the case, so, we're just tossing out ideas. But, the notion that the suit is automatically frivolous, as [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] contends, is completely without basis. It might be. And that will come out. It might go a lot of different ways.

But, claims that it is somehow unethical to seek redress when you believe you have been wronged is just bizarre. The whole point of civil law is to decide this sort of thing. Was the person (or people) in fact wronged in some way, and what should be done to redress that wrong? It's baffling to me to think that this specific complaint is automatically unethical just because they volunteered for something. If, and please, take note of that if, WotC was violating labour laws by creating a volunteer position, then not redressing that would be unethical. If WotC is taking advantage, illegally, of volunteers, then that needs to be addressed.

Notions of "well, I said yes to X, therefore anything that happens after that is my own responsibility" is a moral black hole.