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
​

 

[Obryn]

A lawyer weighs in.

http://blog.legalsolutions.thomsonr...ges-sue-for-lost-wages-claim-to-be-employees/

The key quote?

"It’s difficult to envision a scenario wherein a federal judge, bound by the NLRB’s decision, somehow determines that these judges aren’t employees of Wizards of the Coast."

He expects WotC will "pull an Uber" and settle.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

 

[LordEntrails]

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?

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.

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.

 

[Umbran]

Moreover, there's the simple point that employees cost more. Depending on how much they will need to be paid, WotC may decide the thing is simply not cost effective.

 

[happyhermit]

...
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.

Volunteering for a job and then demanding employee status (even though many would likely volunteer under the original conditions if you stepped out of the way), doesn't sit right with you? Sounds like you need to work on your sense of entitlement and forget about all that personal responsibility stuff. These people are obviously not capable of making the choice to accept the terms or step aside on their own, nobody is.

 

[Obryn]

Volunteering for a job and then demanding employee status (even though many would likely volunteer under the original conditions if you stepped out of the way), doesn't sit right with you? Sounds like you need to work on your sense of entitlement and forget about all that personal responsibility stuff. These people are obviously not capable of making the choice to accept the terms or step aside on their own, nobody is.

Oh goodness gracious. These laws are here for completely rational reasons, and they curtail employers' abuses of a 'volunteer' relationship. Yes, I am completely positive many judges are perfectly happy with the current arrangement. That doesn't actually make it okay for WotC to treat them as anything other than employees under the law.

There's easy ways out of this, though, and any claims that it will end MtG tournaments as we know them are simple posturing.

 

[Ampolitor]

ok the first thing they will have to prove is that #1 they were employees, that will be a hurdle in itself, they will have to prove that there was a "initial job offering" which would of said their pay, etc.. They have a hard road ahead of them, without that formal agreement they were assuming that they were employed and will have to prove so. Wizards has it easy on this one since the Burden of proof is on the judges. It also says that one never even kept record of the hours worked, which in itself says that compensation was a after thought, so he is done. I would eat him alive in a courtroom on that one. No punch clocks, no paychecks after how many years, I mean come on, like I said this whole lawsuit is a after thought and someone is trying to cash in. I think Wizards will get them on this one, unless they can produce where it says that they would be paid for judging etc..

 

[MechaPilot]

ok the first thing they will have to prove is that #1 they were employees, that will be a hurdle in itself, they will have to prove that there was a "initial job offering" which would of said their pay, etc.. They have a hard road ahead of them, without that formal agreement they were assuming that they were employed and will have to prove so. Wizards has it easy on this one since the Burden of proof is on the judges. It also says that one never even kept record of the hours worked, which in itself says that compensation was a after thought, so he is done. I would eat him alive in a courtroom on that one. No punch clocks, no paychecks after how many years, I mean come on, like I said this whole lawsuit is a after thought and someone is trying to cash in. I think Wizards will get them on this one, unless they can produce where it says that they would be paid for judging etc..

Not necessarily. It depends on what standard is used for determining if they are employees. The common-law definition of employee doesn't require an "initial job offering." The most prominent factor in determining status as a common-law employee is the existence of an employer-employee relationship as characterized by the employer having the ability to control the employee's results, and the manner in which the duties are carried out. The ability to terminate is also a considered factor, as is the employer providing the employee with either a place or the tools required to do the job.

 

[Morrus]

ok the first thing they will have to prove is that #1 they were employees, that will be a hurdle in itself, they will have to prove that there was a "initial job offering" which would of said their pay, etc.. They have a hard road ahead of them, without that formal agreement they were assuming that they were employed and will have to prove so. Wizards has it easy on this one since the Burden of proof is on the judges. It also says that one never even kept record of the hours worked, which in itself says that compensation was a after thought, so he is done. I would eat him alive in a courtroom on that one. No punch clocks, no paychecks after how many years, I mean come on, like I said this whole lawsuit is a after thought and someone is trying to cash in. I think Wizards will get them on this one, unless they can produce where it says that they would be paid for judging etc..

I don't think you'll be eating anybody alive in the courtroom. Out of interest, which law firm do you represent?

 

[Koloth]

This is probably why most conventions have a Charity Partner. So they can fall under the Charitable Activity exception to IRS and other Federal Laws pertaining to employment status. Thus volunteers to the convention proper can be exempt and thus not employees. It would appear that MtG judges don't volunteer for the convention proper but instead are 'volunteering' for the company known as WOTC, which is a for profit company.

I have volunteered in years past to run Star Fleet Battles games at conventions. But my arrangements were always with the convention proper and for the most part it was left up to me and my associates as to how we dressed and ran the games.

Given the recent crackdown by the Feds on companies claiming folks are independent contractors rather then employees, WOTC might be in trouble on this one.

 

[Dire Bare]

I can't say I've seen a case in which there was a similar allegation that "volunteers" somehow morphed into "employees". It will be interesting to see how this shakes out.

As mentioned, unpaid interns. Also, college athletes.