Support NeoGAF

[Pastry]

and like many have said. If he didn't file an official complaint of the harassment. It most likely wouldn't have been filed. It seems like he brought it up after the breakdown and that whole situation took place.

Like I said earlier. There's a way this probably played out that wouldn't have had the harassment on file.

He got harassed, kept it to himself for a while. And I don't blame him one bit for that. Has a breakdown at work. Gets called into HR about it. He then tells HR about it. Even then it's not an official complaint it's pretty much just a comment in passing. Just based on how corporate culture works. HR probably deems him expendable based on is breakdown. They offer him 20k in severance pay. He takes that as them paying to silence him.

This is how I see the scenario also. If he mentioned the sexual harassment as a part of the scenario around why he had his mental breakdown then there would be no official complaint on file regarding sexual harassment. Depending on how Sony handles documentation they probably have an HR case around his termination but it wouldn’t have any conversation logs detailing the reasons around his firing.

Unless he specifically filed a sexual harassment case with HR then there will be no indications at Sony or ND that this occurred. Having spent my career working at large public companies the HR departments are very process oriented and so are all of the modern HR management systems. If you don’t follow the process of officially filing a case for each independent thing then details get lost in the process. It’s an unfortunate situation.

It is possible that he told HR, HR acknowledged what he said while working on his mental breakdown case but he never specifically filed a sexual assault case. He was fired the next day and HR moved on to the next case. It could have very well gotten lost in the shuffle of a massive HR department. It could also be an evil HR person but in I personally doubt that is the case.

 

[Boke1879]

And I'm not saying that's what happened OR dismissing the issue, but I can see that being a likely scenario.

 

[Metfanant]

Of course not, but there is no sense of reaching out to David to open dialogue or to look into the matter further.

absolutely there is not...and that is 100% on purpose...you can bet your house on the fact that Sony's lawyers have made it very clear that NOBODY is to have any contact with the accuser...for ANY reason

 

[ByWatterson]

Considering what is happening in a post Weinstein America right now the statement lacks any sense of empathy or compassion for the person making the accusations. Do I expect them to come out and own it and admit guilt? Of course not, but there is no sense of reaching out to David to open dialogue or to look into the matter further.

Because if they did, that could be used in a possible lawsuit as validation of his claims. You can't feel your way through potentially massive liability lawsuits. The head, not the heart, governs here, as it must.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

But they are calling him a liar, aren't they - the statement isn't saying they have no evidence of his allegations, it's saying they have no evidence of the allegations being brought to their attention.

But they’re not are they?

At no point in the statement did they say he’s a liar.

It’s a sensitive subject for a lot of people but in a legal context, “feelings” and “what people think” do not come into it, they mean nothing from a legal standpoint.

Factually, they are stating they have no evidence of the allegations, therefore, they cannot pursue any claims until such evidence/allegations come to light.

 

[ByWatterson]

I hope you guys also appreciate how hamstrung a corporation with a defined harassment policy is in investigating claims like this without an official complaint. Those policies exist to protect the accuser AND the accused. If they went around performing investigations based on an informal phone call, they'd be opening themselves up to suits from the investigation targets.

 

[Drek]

It probably isn't fair to say they're calling him a liar - that's probably too strong a term. But rather than "They just don't have evidence of his allegations", it seems to be "They're saying they don't have any evidence of the allegations being brought to Naughty Dog or Sony Interactive Entertainment's attention", which conflicts with "In February 2016 I had a mental breakdown at work & Sony Playstation HR became involved. When I told them about the harassment they...".

Ruling out mismanagement of documentation Naughty Dog's statement doesn't seem reconcilable with the recent allegations. Losing (intentionally or otherwise) documents pertaining to the allegations seems to be the only way both could be true.

#1 - Or one particular person in HR took it upon themselves to shield the harasser, and offered a standard severance package knowing that it's defamation clauses would be an effective muzzle for their act being caught by the company, only for the person to refuse said severance.

#2 - Or the HR person involved didn't report the harassment as they saw the accuser's current mental state as too damaging to their credibility, which leads to 2A - they didn't feel like dealing with a well performed investigation or 2B - they were concerned that following through would prevent the company from laying the person off (severance, unemployment, etc. available) versus termination with cause (falsely making accusations, leading to no severance, the company challenging unemployment claims, etc.).

#3 - Or the person mid-mental breakdown thinks they made their harassment clear but weren't as lucid as they believe.

#4 - Or Naughty Dog/Sony are intentionally trying to protect a sexual harasser who may not even work there anymore, risking serious employee protection/labor laws in a state with comparatively strict enforcement on this matter, not to mention a civil suit.

Which of these three is most likely? Which is least likely?

People need to wake up to the fact that workplace harassment is not a clean matter. Employers and their HR staff are often most in the dark on matters like this as people fear making waves as a result of the decades old toxic culture associated with most professional working conditions. Even when it gets to them HR employees have different levels of skill and empathy. Most are actually really good people who just want to make everything work smoothly for both the employer and the employee, but there are definitely a share who take the wrong mindset towards their jobs, and others who're just cynical shits.

Pointing the finger at the company named immediately is turning it into another over-simplified and therefore devalued political talking point the opposite side of the argument can dismiss ad hominem. Doing so only slows progress.

Mr. Ballard should contact a lawyer, not tweet, about his claim. It would do everyone involved far more good, except the alleged harasser and only then if they are guilty.

 

[autoduelist]

He said they offer him 20k. "No evidence". Well someone is lying.

Very surprising considering the meticulous records that I'm sure Sony keeps of its $20k hush money offers.

[and other related posts]

The $20k (or $10k, or more, or less) is a fairly standard 'severance' package in the IT world. An employer pays this for many reasons when they terminate an employee -- as a thank you for previous work, as a stepping stone to a new job, etc. But most of all? So you sign an agreement you're not going to try to sue them over getting fired or anything else. It's just a 'bye forever' sort of agreement, and it's commonplace in innocent situations.

I've gone through this. More than once. So have plenty of people I've known in the IT industry. In a normal situation, everyone wins - I go out of work with an extra pile of cash in my account, and they don't need to worry about me claiming they stole my work or something, or suing breech of contract, or whatever. It's not that I was going to do that... it's that they're just 'closing the door on the way out', from a legal perspective.

I realize the person making these accusations framed it as a 'bribe' not to talk about the allegations he made. But honestly, he'd likely have gotten the same exact offer had he simply been fired for any other reason had he never made any allegations at all. One is likely completely separate from the other. It was a standard offer for someone of his level upon getting released from work.

Even if we had 'proof' they offered him $20k, it would mean absolutely nothing. Severance is part of doing business.

EDIT : the post above me pretty much nails it. There is a lot at play here. The odds they are intentionally covering it up are slim compared to some of the other options on the table.

 

[CaviarMeths]

i hope this doesnt read as me discrediting the guy, i dont know jack about him but fins that unconditional victim support for any horrible story is a really naive position to take on issues.

No, it's not naive.

Most sexual harassment goes unreported because victims do not feel that their allegations will be taken seriously. It's a humiliating experience and our current culture is quick to suggest someone is making it up for attention or for financial gain. Showing support for the victims that do come forward creates an environment that makes it easier for people to talk about their abuse. And if you believe everyone who claims abuse, you will be correct almost every time. False allegations are rare. Being non-committal is more harmful than being supportive of potential victims. If someone you care about tells you that they've been abused, please believe them. They need your support.

That's not to say that cases should not be investigated for truth and validity, but the default stance absolutely should be "I believe you."

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

Let's say that the guy is not telling the truth, why would he do that after several years? Disgruntled ex-employee looking to get some money? Oh there have been cases like that in the past but I don't see that being the case here.

All hypothetical here,

1. Disgruntled ex-employee(particularly one that hasn't gotten a job elsewhere in over a year) trying to get some money or a sympathy hire due to the Hollywood situation hype.

or

2. Was actually assaulted but didn't report it, was later fairly let go but blamed the assault as playing into it.
comes out now because the Hollywood situation.

Sony looks bad regardless, and as reaction to this very statement proves Sony can't really definitively prove themselves here.
Sony definitively saying no evidence is the crazy part. Companies almost always say "We are investigating" to cover their asses either way.

 

[danthefan]

But they are calling him a liar, aren't they - the statement isn't saying they have no evidence of his allegations, it's saying they have no evidence of the allegations being brought to their attention.

Not really no.

 

[Pastry]

Very surprising considering the meticulous records that I’m sure Sony keeps of its $20k hush money offers.

Do you understand what severance is or how modern HR departments function?

 

[Chris_Rivera]

My guess is that the harassment in question wasn’t truly an actionable offense, but may have been interpreted as such. Basically it’s a stretch to everyone else, but them.

The burden of proof isn’t on ND though. Have any further details been released? Usually you get more than just a generic accusation.

 

[Alienous]

But they’re not are they?

At no point in the statement did they say he’s a liar.

It’s a sensitive subject for a lot of people but in a legal context, “feelings” and “what people think” do not come into it, they mean nothing from a legal standpoint.

Factually, they are stating they have no evidence of the allegations, therefore, they cannot pursue any claims until such evidence/allegations come to light.

Not really no.

I was corrected. I'll adjust my post.

 

[WaterAstro]

Wow, another thread. I'll just post what I said in the other one.

I think we're going to have a lot of these that could be fake allegations. It could be real. We don't know.
Certainly no person in the World can be exempt from this kind of crime. Anyone can do it.

The difference is that the journalist who wrote the piece on exposing Weinstein spent years making it. There's a huge difference between a single post of Twitter vs what it took to finally expose Weinstein.

 

[gamerMan]

I am of course digging into this and have been since I saw the allegations yesterday while at a wedding in Rhode Island and snuck outside to send some emails. If anyone has any information on this or any other cases of alleged sexual harassment at Sony or any other game company, please don't hesitate to contact me. (jason@kotaku.com)

Hopefully Jason can get in contact with Dave Ballard and Ballard can have the courage to name the perpetrator. Also, wasn't there somebody else at Naughty Dog that also had similar claims.

 

[phantasmic_glaive]

That statement is nothing. Not important in any way.

Of course they will say that they haven't found any evidence of that. It is the easy way out, and seemingly at least few people fell for it already.

Damage control at it's finest.

OR they haven't found anything!? This isn't just some random studio, is fuckin naughty dog. And if there were one asshole that was harassing people, I believe, Sony would have booted him/ her, even druckman.

I don't think they would hang the entire balance of their first party stable on one person. That being said..

If true, then I hope they can clean house of all involved. But, if dude doesn't provide proof or gain allies, it's going to be tough for him to ever work in this industry again. But..

California law requires employers to pay employees all wages owed at the time of termination. ... This includes not only the employee's salary or wages up to the termination date, but also all of the employee's accrued and unused vacation or paid time off (PTO). Cal. Labor Code § 227.3.

It's very possible he took serverance and not took the extra $20,000. But, this happens to women ALL time in every industry and more often than not they take the money and move on to another job.

Denying $20,000 and speaking up over 2 years later with little to no context as to what happened... is a little hard to believe.

He was definitely given termination papers, so he should at least show them.

 

[Boke1879]

Hopefully Jason can get in contact with Dave Ballard and Ballard can have the courage to name the perpetrator. Also, wasn't there somebody else at Naughty Dog that also had similar claims.

Yes, but these seem to be 2 different people as of right now.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

absolutely there is not...and that is 100% on purpose...you can bet your house on the fact that Sony's lawyers have made it very clear that NOBODY is to have any contact with the accuser...for ANY reason

Because if they did, that could be used in a possible lawsuit as validation of his claims. You can't feel your way through potentially massive liability lawsuits. The head, not the heart, governs here, as it must.

I wouldn't say my approach would implicate Sony in any wrongdoing but would actually show them to be transparent and willing to see if any harassment did take place.

This dismissive and standoffish approach does them as a company no favours at all hence my reasoning for poor PR.

 

[KageMaru]

I am not saying the guy is lying,but you have to prove your allegations,otherwise,I don't believe

So if you get your ass grabbed in the break room, you think that's something that is easy to prove?

 

[Razgriz-Specter]

That statement is nothing. Not important in any way.

Of course they will say that they haven't found any evidence of that. It is the easy way out, and seemingly at least few people fell for it already.

Damage control at it's finest.

No, the easy way out is "We are investigating these claims"
Saying "No evidence" is a terrible answer because any little thing works as proof and makes the company a liar.

 

[10k]

I am of course digging into this and have been since I saw the allegations yesterday while at a wedding in Rhode Island and snuck outside to send some emails. If anyone has any information on this or any other cases of alleged sexual harassment at Sony or any other game company, please don't hesitate to contact me. (jason@kotaku.com)

This is why you're the industries finest journalist, you wedding sneak fuck.

 

[CaviarMeths]

This is why you're the industries finest journalist, you wedding sneak fuck.

"wedding sneak fuck" has an entirely different implication lol.

 

[Metfanant]

I wouldn't say my approach would implicate Sony in any wrongdoing but would actually show them to be transparent and willing to see if any harassment did take place.

This dismissive and standoffish approach does them as a company no favours at all hence my reasoning for poor PR.

its not about implications of wrong doing...you simply DO NOT reach out to someone who has accused you of these types of things

edit: here i am still reading and replying, after i said i wouldn't lol

 

[ByWatterson]

I wouldn't say my approach would implicate Sony in any wrongdoing but would actually show them to be transparent and willing to see if any harassment did take place.

This dismissive and standoffish approach does them as a company no favours at all hence my reasoning for poor PR.

They'll take bad PR over sloppy legal navigation. This is where it goes, where it must go, when someone makes an accusation to which millions of dollars in liability might attach. He's not an employee, so the relationship is now inherently adversarial.

Moreover, if the guy has retained counsel in this matter, directly contacting him is likely illegal.

 

[SubAdictos]

I don't believe the Ballard's allegations. Period.

If something offer you 20.000 for your silence and you say no, it's because you want to be heard or you want to take the case to a court (and get a sentence or more money).

Now, 17 months later and unemployed, you write on Twitter... sure.

 

[qko]

No, the easy way out is "We are investigating these claims"
Saying "No evidence" is a terrible answer because any little thing works as proof and makes the company a liar.

It’s probably HR speak for “We met with Ballard due to his breakdown at work, the contents of that conversation cannot be discussed according to company policy, therefore, no evidence of harassment allegations exist”

 

[Fiendcode]

They'll take bad PR over sloppy legal navigation. This is where it goes, where it must go, when someone makes an accusation to which millions of dollars in liability might attach. He's not an employee, so the relationship is now inherently adversarial.

Moreover, if the guy has retained counsel in this matter, directly contacting him is likely illegal.

I still think there’s space for a more sensitive and careful response that doesn’t admit wrongdoing or broach any legal barriers. Bad PR or sloppy legality aren’t a binary choice.

Post-Weinstein setting yourself up as the publicly perceived adversary to abuse victims probably isn’t the smartest route.

 

[shimon]

What a mess. Assuming he's telling the truth,unless he has some proof this is probably over.

 

[ByWatterson]

I still think there’s space for a more sensitive and careful response that doesn’t admit wrongdoing or broach any legal barriers. Bad PR or sloppy legality aren’t a binary choice.

Post-Weinstein setting yourself up as the publicly perceived adversary to abuse victims probably isn’t the smartest route.

Perhaps could be stylistically more sensitive, but the substance of the statement is about as far as they can go.

 

[Bits N Pieces]

its not about implications of wrong doing...you simply DO NOT reach out to someone who has accused you of these types of things

edit: here i am still reading and replying, after i said i wouldn't lol

They'll take bad PR over sloppy legal navigation. This is where it goes, where it must go, when someone makes an accusation to which millions of dollars in liability might attach. He's not an employee, so the relationship is now inherently adversarial.

Moreover, if the guy has retained counsel in this matter, directly contacting him is likely illegal.

It must be different in the UK to America then, cause over here you can certainly show empathy whilst being procedural and matter of fact. I say this as someone that has helped write PR responses to situations a company would rather not deal with.

 

[Jimnymebob]

I don't believe the Ballard's allegations. Period.

If something offer you 20.000 for your silence and you say no, it's because you want to be heard or you want to take the case to a court (and get a sentence or more money).

Now, 17 months later and unemployed, you write on Twitter... sure.

It's not a case of believing or not believing in the accuser/the accused.

Personally I (and many others here) have no reason to believe either party. However, his claim is absolutely credible, and should acknowledged as such.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

It must be different in the UK to America then, cause over here you can certainly show empathy whilst being procedural and matter of fact. I say this as someone that has helped write PR responses to situations a company would rather not deal with.

Too much empathy can be viewed as admitting wrongdoing. These by the numbers statements happen to prevent that. You don't reach out. You investigate and prepare for any potential proceedings

 

[Portugeezer]

All they said is that they haven't found any evidence, it may still exist, if true.

 

[7threst]

I don't believe the Ballard's allegations. Period.

If something offer you 20.000 for your silence and you say no, it's because you want to be heard or you want to take the case to a court (and get a sentence or more money).

Now, 17 months later and unemployed, you write on Twitter... sure.

What? People have many reasons to do thing a certaion way. Don't forget: it's one man against a pretty powerful corporation. He was assaulted, he had a breakdown and the company did nothing except offering him a little bit of money to make him shut up.

What are you gonna do? Take it to Twitter immediately because otherwise people won't believe you? No, you sort shit out, think things through and through and through while also getting your life back on track, trying to get a job in an industry where said corporation is held in pretty high esteem.

In short: you don't know his reasons for wehy he chose to speak out now and it is also not a case of believe/don't believe, or siding with either party, but public allegations like these are not to be taken lightly and are to be taken seriously, always. At least, that's what I think. Sexual assault destoys people you know, it's horrible when it happens to you and it is just as horrible people don't believe you or doubt you when you do speak out just because of the timing.

 

[Brotherhood93]

The way I see it is if Ballard is lying and/or Naughty Dog have strong reason to believe the claims are fabricated then their statement is perfectly fine. If David is telling the truth but ND are genuinely unaware of this happening then the statement is fine if not slightly insensitive towards Ballard. If the issue was known to Naughty Dog they are pure scum and will be outed as such in time.

Without knowing which instance is true it's hard to judge, in my opinion.

 

[Glass Shark]

.

 

[Fiendcode]

Perhaps could be stylistically more sensitive, but the substance of the statement is about as far as they can go.

I don’t disagree with that, the issue is more the language and framing than anything. If anything it may be argued they went too far on substance with the no evidence found part (possibly moving into sloppy legality territory, why make any admission at all with the potential to be disproven), but strategically it makes sense in terms of wanting to end discussion.

 

[Trup1aya]

Sound sorta like those standard "we investigated ourselves and didn't find any wrong doing" Statements you here from law enforcement after police misconduct.

If he did report it, Whether or not they have a record is going to come down to how they handled the report. If he notified a superior or HR in person, or via a phone call, it would be incredibly easy to fire him w/o a formal complaint being documented.

Hopefully there is some email correspondence directly related to the incident.

 

[ByWatterson]

Too much empathy can be viewed as admitting wrongdoing. These by the numbers statements happen to prevent that. You don't reach out. You investigate and prepare for any potential proceedings

Right. If he were still an employee, you do contact, investigate, etc. But he is now in a potentially litigious posture, meaning we're in lawyer territory now: parsed words, adversarial positioning, and only stone cold facts being disseminated.

Which is why no one should doubt this statement. If false, they could be sued for libel (although probably a weak case).

 

[geordiemp]

I don't believe the Ballard's allegations. Period.

If something offer you 20.000 for your silence and you say no, it's because you want to be heard or you want to take the case to a court (and get a sentence or more money).

Now, 17 months later and unemployed, you write on Twitter... sure.

It is not what you would expect for sure and it does not add up, no name, no detail on accusation, and 2 years.

 

[ProBusinessgamer]

What did you expect him to say, its just a PR response.

 

[orochi91]

On the plus side, if he has any proof at all, ND are gonna be royally fucked.

I'm assuming he has some evidence on hand, because why else would you publicly expose and allege something this serious.

 

[JetSetRadio]

On a sunday nonetheless.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

On the plus side, if he has any proof at all, ND are gonna be royally fucked.

I'm assuming he has some evidence on hand, because why else would you publicly expose and allege something this serious.

It's not a court. He could just very well put this off his chest.

 

[xkramz]

This is so sad I wish we find a resolution to all this.

 

[Sakwoff]

Holy shit, what a fucking terrible statement.

Here, ND, let me do the "early statement on serious issue" thing for you:

- we've heard the allegations
- we've reached out to the victim
- we're looking into the matter

Here, done.

I honestly cannot believe how shitty this is.

 

[Crimson_Gold]

Holy shit, what a fucking terrible statement.

Here, ND, let me do the "early statement on serious issue" thing for you:

- we've heard the allegations
- we've reached out to the victim
- we're looking into the matter

Here, done.

I honestly cannot believe how shitty this is.

And this is why you're not an attorney

 

[Mattenth]

Here's my read on events:

• David suffers months of harassment, does NOT tell management.
• David has a mental breakdown We don't know the details, but it sounds serious. (At this point, the harassment is still unknown to management)
• Management makes the decision to fire him. At this point, David is getting fired no matter what.
• David tells management about the harassment. Note that, David is still on the way out.
• Management offers David a severance package. Severence packages always come with a non-disparagement clause. David interprets this as "paying to silence me."

What I'm yet to see is any evidence that Sony and/or Naughty Dog knew about the harassment. If David told them as he was being fired, or after they'd already written him off, that's just not going to prompt action.

I personally can't hold it against those companies without seeing some sort of willful disregard. I wish David would give more details, but I think he'd be foolish too and he should get a lawyer.

Again, I believe David when he says he was sexually harassed, but I don't think that somehow makes Sony/Naughty Dog guilty. The unnamed harasser is the real villain here.