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
​

 

[Jester David]

...I was always under the impression that those judges received free product for their efforts. I am not into the game, but I know the guy running the MtG tournaments at my local FLGS. He always comes away with stuff afterwards.

They're having work long shifts with limited breaks, and still pay for meals. Possibly 12-36 hours of work over a convention. Plus travel time and potentially time taken off from their real jobs.
Unless they're being paid upwards of a thousand dollars worth of product, it seems light.

The same thing can apply to D&D DMs during a con. The amount of hours you need to run to qualify for a free hotel is pretty high. Especially the all-access pass DMs that might have limited no time at the convention to do other things (i.e. see the convention). And the compensation in the past has been a couple hundred dollars of books.

 

[Doctor Futurity]

Well, I'm can't say whether the case has merit, but there's definitely some aspects of the MtG judging program that sound exactly like an employee role. Judges have to wear certain uniforms, work set hours, complete certifications, file reports, etc. They are monitored and supervised by WotC staff. They are apparently paid in product and provided airfare and accomodations.

And as I understand it, federal law says that the term "volunteer" only applies to people working for a non-profit organization such as community groups, boy/girl scouts, church groups, convention organizers for small conventions, etc. Apparently, for-profit groups can't have volunteers; they have just employees and independent contractors.

But labor law is weird and complex, and I am definitely not a lawyer. I just think that maybe judges should be paid, just like umpires, referees, and others.

This here. And as an employer, let me state that I would not in my business be able to sustain an arrangement --even on a temporary, short-term basis-- with any staff as volunteers as described here; they would have to come on to payroll.

That said, there are plenty of businesses that would see how much they can get away with, and as someone else pointed out it is likely no coincidence that this is happening out of California in the wake of the Uber ruling.

 

[Greatwyrm]

Right, but that's not a wage. That's not even company scrip. It's compensation, certainly, but there's a reason grocery store employees aren't paid in groceries.

I wonder if these guys declared the cash value of their perks as income on their taxes. And yes, I've actually had to do that before.

 

[turkeygiant]

As far as I can make out (and I'm no lawyer) the argument is that under certain conditions, a voluntary arrangement meets the qualifications for an employer-employee relationship, regardless of whether it was labelled voluntary; and the plaintiffs, and their lawyers, feel that the way WotC conducted the program met those conditions as defined in certain statutes and existing labour laws.

Whether a jury will agree that those conditions were met is another matter. I guess we'll find out! But it's clearly not just a trivial "oh it says 'voluntary' - case closed!" situation. The case hinges on a lot more than the usage of that one word.

That's pretty much it, there are definitions in labour law (depending on where you live) that cannot be opted out of even if employer and employee both would like to. This creates a situation where someone can agree to work as an unpaid intern or volunteer, even sign that they agree to do so, but if they come back later and say "wait I really should have been paid for that work" that pre-agreement isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

In the case of interns the work they are doing should be educational in nature, and with volunteers the work should be something that someone would not usually be paid for. The issue arises when you find out that a intern or volunteer is doing work that is profit generating, or if the work they are doing is the same work that someone else is being paid for. And if after doing that work a intern or volunteer realizes that they have been taken advantage of and they have been doing what should have be paid work, they have a right to those wages.

 

[TarionzCousin]

What makes you say that isn't the case?

WotC could not have responded before the full lawsuit since there are no more interrupts in MtG.

 

[MechaPilot]

As far as I can make out (and I'm no lawyer) the argument is that under certain conditions, a voluntary arrangement meets the qualifications for an employer-employee relationship, regardless of whether it was labelled voluntary; and the plaintiffs, and their lawyers, feel that the way WotC conducted the program met those conditions as defined in certain statutes and existing labour laws.

Whether a jury will agree that those conditions were met is another matter. I guess we'll find out! But it's clearly not just a trivial "oh it says 'voluntary' - case closed!" situation. The case hinges on a lot more than the usage of that one word.

This actually relates to a research paper for one of my classes. There is a common-law definition for an employee which involves the individual providing services for another individual, when the individual whom the services are provided for has the right to control and direct the individual performing the services as to the outcome and performance of the services.

Other factors relevant to making the employee determination include the right to terminate the employee's services, the providing of tools and/or a place for performing those services.

This common law definition is used by the IRS for determining whether someone is an employee for employment tax purposes.

 

[Obryn]

I'm sure the judges could have approached WotC and opened up discussions for policy change. They could have also gathered support from judges all around the world and created a petition. Legal action should be a last resort, not a go-to solution.

I honestly have no idea if they did or didn't, but I don't think it matters either way.

Frankly, this is exactly what the courts are there for. Let it go to a judge and/or jury. If it's frivolous, that will come out. If they have been mistreated, they don't have a duty to go through a long process before bringing suit.

 

[Umbran]

They're having work long shifts with limited breaks, and still pay for meals. Possibly 12-36 hours of work over a convention. Plus travel time and potentially time taken off from their real jobs.
Unless they're being paid upwards of a thousand dollars worth of product, it seems light.

Heh. I occasionally work staff for a convention. The only pay we get for the many hours of work is, if we do enough hours, a complimentary membership to the con (which is under $100) Access to reserve in the staff block of rooms (we still have to *pay* for the rooms), and access to the "staff den" to grab snacks and sodas. Oh, and maybe a T-shirt.

Conventions run on the backs of volunteers, not on the backs of paid employees.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Back in the 1990s, I volunteered at SXSW. Got some leftover CDs by bands most people have never heard of...and a free pass to all the concert venues. (Just regular admission, no backstage passes or after party fun.)

Got to meet a buttload of celebrities, too.

 

[Goemoe]

As a regular MtG player this is the first I've heard of anything like this. Maybe this group did try other strategies first. But to respond to Obryn's question, there are alternative routes that I think are less drastic.

This case has been in discussion more than ten years ago and I am from germany only hearing things from judges here then.(not playing anymore) This is no new fuss of a small group in california.