California’s Civil Rights Mafia

In 2018, two women filed a class-action suit against Riot Games, the video-game colossus responsible for League of LegendsValorant, and other popular titles. They claimed that the company had denied them and other female employees “equal pay,” favored men for promotions, and created a “hostile work environment.” The women wanted Riot Games to pay out and to “cause social change.”

One year later, the parties agreed to a $10 million settlement. It was a massive sum, but not enough for California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, which intervened to block the agreement and claim that Riot Games could be on the hook for a staggering $400 million. Facing a court battle against a deep-pocketed state agency, Riot Games later agreed to a $100 million settlement, about ten times the original amount.

California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing, now called the Civil Rights Department, has turned the Riot Games strategy into an entire playbook. For years, the state’s civil rights apparatus has enabled nonprofits and lawyers to shake down major companies, spinning small-dollar claims into massive, multimillion-dollar settlements.

The system operates like a mafia. Its “don,” Governor Gavin Newsom, sits at the top. His capo, CRD director Kevin Kish, runs the shakedown campaigns. And the state advances the interests of the entire Democratic apparatus: the Civil Rights Department secures settlement cash for radical NGOs, labor leaders can use the cases to create pressure for unionization, and left-wing lawyers “cause social change” at scale. For the first time, we are revealing the inner workings of California’s civil rights mafia – and exposing the corruption of state government.

California’s Civil Rights Department was created in 1980 as the Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The department was initially tasked with enforcing nondiscrimination law, but in the wake of the #MeToo and George Floyd social movements, the state’s power structure saw an opportunity to turn the agency into a powerhouse. They rebranded the organization as the Civil Rights Department in 2022, in keeping with the agency’s focus on shaking down companies for “civil rights violations.”

The shakedown campaigns have been remarkably successful. In the last four years alone, the CRD has coerced corporations like Microsoft ($14 million), Snap Inc. ($15 million), and Riot Games ($100 million) to shell out eight- and nine-figure payments. These settlements have variously included provisions for class members, interest groups, and the CRD itself, which is allowed by state law to recoup fees associated with its prosecutions.

The CRD’s enforcement actions often include one or more predictable features. First, the CRD finds a handful of women or minorities who claim that a large corporation has mistreated them. Then the agency initiates or intervenes in an action against that corporation. Finally, to spin small-dollar claims into massive payouts, the CRD generates outrageous liability estimates, which goad the company to the negotiating table.

The point man on this scheme is Kevin Kish, a Yale Law School graduate and the CRD’s director. On its website, the agency notes Kish’s reputation for taking “a creative approach to advocacy,” which involves “collaborations” with nonprofits and “organizing campaigns” – in other words, using the department to advance the interests of unions, nonprofits, and other left-wing groups.

Kish mastered this approach during his time in the progressive legal movement. Before starting in state government, he worked as director of the Employment Rights Project for Bet Tzedek Legal Service, where, in one instance, he helped turn a small-time wage-and-hour case into a multimillion settlement against Walmart and one of its contractors.

Apparently pleased with Kish’s efforts, then-Governor Jerry Brown appointed him to lead the Department of Fair Employment and Housing in late 2014. Gay activists celebrated his appointment, with one LGBT group calling Kish a “strong and passionate legal champion.”

In his first few years at the DFEH, Kish oversaw several small-time suits: in 2015, he got a Mexican restaurant chain to cough up $130,000; in 2017, he induced a rural welfare nonprofit to shell out $152,000. Then, in 2019, he intervened in the Riot Games case, which later delivered a nine-figure payout and apparently encouraged him to expand his ambitions. For Kish, who has argued that “there is almost no [adult] transgender person who has not experienced . . . some form of discrimination,” the role represented an opportunity to enforce his broad understanding of “hate.”

By 2021, Kish had perfected the shakedown model and picked a new target: Activision Blizzard, the video-game giant that owns titles like World of Warcraft and Call of Duty. The CRD sued the company, alleging, among other things, that it had discriminated against female employees and cultivated a “frat boy” culture. According to a criminal referral that we obtained, which was filed by a group tied to former Activision CEO Robert Kotick, the pretext for the department’s action was an earlier federal complaint, which concluded that charging Activision would “send a message to the industry as a whole.”

The original class-action suit included just ten of Activision’s more than 9,000 employees. The complaint claimed, among other things, that “only about 20 percent” of the company’s employees were female, that some of its employees riffed “about their sexual encounters,” and that a female employee had committed suicide, potentially in connection with an alleged relationship with a supervisor.

Activision initially tried to placate the CRD. Kotick reportedly “pledged to add resources to ensure that Activision Blizzard’s hiring practices are more diverse.” The company’s then-president, J. Allen Brack, said that he “disdain[ed] ‘bro culture'” and had spent his “career fighting against it.” Activision apparently even offered paid time off to workers who wanted to participate in a staged “walk-out.”

It didn’t work. In fact, things got worse: later that year, sensing the company’s vulnerability, a labor union called the Communication Workers of America (CWA) filed a suit with the National Labor Relations Board. The union accused the company of trying to prevent workers from demanding a “more equitable, sustainable, and diverse workplace.”

The CRD and the CWA apparently had shared ambitions – to punish and to unionize Activision – and even hired the same law firm. Kish’s CRD hired the same firm (Outten & Golden) that represented the CWA in another suit. The firm’s lawyer said that he believed it was the “first time the State of California has retained a private firm to prosecute employment law claims in trial court.” (In response to a question about Outten & Golden, CRD pointed us to a ruling in California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment v. California State Personnel Board.)

In September, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission brought its own misconduct suit against Activision. The agency claimed, among other things, that Activision had exposed “female employees to sexual harassment.” The two sides agreed to an $18 million settlement, but the CRD wasn’t satisfied.

Keep reading

AG Claims Civil Rights Win He Doesn’t Deserve

To be fair, this isn’t the first example in which AG John Formella got the Judicial system to agree with his disastrous interpretation of New Hampshire’s Civil Rights Act. Frank Hobbs took his “feelings” out on someone’s pride sign, and the State decided it was a hate crime. There’s no such thing, but if Judges and juries keep pretending there is, it gets harder to end the BS. They found Hobbs guilty of a civil rights violation and destruction of property because they just knew what he was thinking, as if that even matters.

Formella keeps dipping his tyrannical toe into that brackish pond, and he came up with another court win.

Attorney General John M. Formella announces that the Merrimack County Superior Court has found that Travis Lufkin, age 25, of Concord, New Hampshire, violated the New Hampshire Civil Rights Act, RSA chapter 354-B. The case arose on May 19, 2024, when Mr. Lufkin struck the victim, a transgender woman, in the face at her place of work after he was asked to leave the property. Mr. Lufkin called the victim a homophobic slur when he struck the victim.

The Court found that the assault was motivated by Mr. Lufkin’s animus towards the victim’s gender identity.

“The New Hampshire Civil Rights Act protects every person from violence and intimidation motivated by bias,” said Attorney General Formella. “The New Hampshire Department of Justice will continue to enforce the laws of this state fairly and consistently, hold offenders accountable, and protect the rights and safety of all Granite Staters.”

A homeless guy on a bicycle lost his shit, and because the person happened to be transgender, the AG piled charges on top of what was a simple assault/harassment case by someone who probably wasn’t all there mentally to begin with.

Keep reading

Polish President Karol Nawrocki Vetoes Bills Giving Rights to Same-Sex Couples, Vows To Protect Marriage as ‘Union of a Man and a Woman’

Although Poland is governed by Liberal-Globalist Prime Minister Donald Tusk, the Donald J. Trump-aligned President is using his constitutional powers to good effect, defending the conservative values for which he was elected.

About a month ago, he took up the fight against Ukrainians honoring WW2 Nazi criminals who massacred 100,000 Poles and Jews, going as far as stripping Volodymyr Zelensky of Poland’s highest commendation, the White Eagle award.

Today, it arises that Nawrocki VETOED bills that would give same-sex couples new rights, and unapologetically vowed to protect marriage as ‘a union of a man and a woman’.

Reuters reported:

“Poland’s president vetoed two ​bills on Friday that would have introduced ‘cohabitation contracts’ for couples living together, dealing a blow to ‌same-sex couples in one of the few European Union countries with limited rights for LGBT people.

Prime Minister Donald Tusk took office in 2023 pledging to deliver reforms on abortion and LGBT rights, but divisions within his broad pro-European coalition as well as ​nationalist President Karol Nawrocki’s veto powers mean he has struggled to do so.”

The broken-hearted tone of Reuters reporting is totally unsurprising, at this point.

The legislation had secured support from across the governing coalition, but Nawrocki killed it.

Keep reading

WOKE AND OUT OF TOUCH: Multi-Millionaire Singer Alicia Keys Whines on Instagram That American Women ‘Don’t Have Equal Rights’

Multi-platinum recording artist Alicia Keys just dropped a fresh dose of radical feminist grievance porn on Instagram, sobbing that it’s been “100 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced” and gasp “women don’t have an explicit guarantee to equal rights under the U.S. Constitution.”

The out-of-touch celebrity then directed her followers to the site peoplesbillofrights250.org to “turn outrage into authorship” and help craft some new “People’s Bill of Rights” for America’s 250th anniversary.

In a video posted to Instagram, Keys said:

“Did you know that it’s been 100 years since the Equal Rights Amendment was first introduced? And now, still, women don’t have an explicit guarantee to equal rights under the U.S. Constitution. Can you believe that? I couldn’t even believe that was real. I mean, women are not asking for special rights, just equal rights.

Let’s turn outrage into authorship. If it’s the 250th celebration of the country, isn’t it time to update some things? What rights or guarantees do you feel all women should have in America? That’s a good question. I’m not here to speak for you. I just want to pass you the mic. So have your say at peoplesbillofrights250.org. Not red, not blue. Just you.

Keep reading

The Unfinished Revolution: When Rights Become Privileges

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?”—Thomas Jefferson

What exactly are Americans celebrating this Fourth of July?

Two hundred and fifty years after the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that all people possess inalienable rights, we now live under a government that increasingly behaves as though rights belong to the government to distribute, restrict and revoke as it sees fit.

Freedom has become conditional.

Equal justice under law has become selective.

Constitutional rights have become political bargaining chips.

Government now claims the authority to decide which religious beliefs deserve accommodation and which may be excluded—a clear violation of the First Amendment’s warning against both establishing a religion and favoring or disfavoring one religion over another.

It insists that some speakers deserve constitutional protection while others may be censored, surveilled or punished—a violation of the right to free speech.

It proclaims itself the defender of unborn life while dismantling programs that protect the health and welfare of children already born.

It welcomes some immigrants with extraordinary speed while denying others the full measure of due process promised by the Constitution.

It pays lip service to equality under law while dismantling programs designed to ensure equal opportunity and root out discrimination.

It invokes the sanctity of children while narrowing which children may claim the birthright citizenship guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

It insists that no one is above the law while expanding presidential immunity and removing many of the traditional checks on executive power.

None of these contradictions exists in isolation.

Keep reading

What ‘Rights’ Do They Want That They Don’t Already Have?

As we all know, the political leaders of the Democrat Party have absolutely no conscience whatsoever. Most politicians, around the world and in America (on both sides of the aisle), fall into that category, but Democrats are especially guilty of it. They lie, they propagandize, they demagogue, they cheat, they steal, they do whatever they believe is necessary to obtain and hold the power they lust for. It doesn’t matter what they need to do, how immoral it is, how egregious it is, how harmful it is to fellow Americans—if it puts them in power, they’ll do it. No conscience whatsoever. And they’ll hope sufficient Americans are blind and naïve enough (I hate to use the word “stupid,” but that’s what it amounts to) to believe their propagandistic lies.

Claiming, or implying, that certain groups don’t have the same “rights” as other (mainly white male) Americans do, is one of their major ploys. The great Thomas Sowell once wrote, “If you believe in equal rights, then what do ‘women’s rights,’ ‘gay rights,’ etc., mean? Either they are redundant or they are violations of the principle of equal rights for all.” If homosexuals or woman or blacks must have their own special set of “rights,” then that means, as Sowell so correctly points out, that “equal rights” means nothing. “Equal rights for all, special privileges for none,” Thomas Jefferson said, but that isn’t what the Democratic Party believes.

Of course, the Democrats like to claim that “gays,” “blacks,” and “women” are denied “equal rights” that other Americans have. Well, even if they are (more on that in a moment), why not insist upon “equal rights” for everybody? That would include blacks, women, homosexuals, white males, etc. Why do they need to single out certain groups? Historical grievances and inequalities are invalid unless those historical inequalities can be proven to be happening now. And that can’t be done. What are they?

The Democrats shout “women’s rights,” “gay rights,” whatever special group of “rights” they can concoct for one purpose and one purpose only—to try to obtain votes. And they lie incessantly to accomplish it. Hence, no conscience, only lust for power.

Keep reading

Harmeet Dhillon: DOJ ‘Will Explore Possibility of Federal Charges’ in Brutal Assault on TPUSA Journalist Savanah Hernandez

As The Gateway Pundit previously reported, conservative journalist and TPUSA Frontlines reporter Savanah Hernandez was viciously assaulted by a deranged far-left anti-ICE mob outside the Whipple ICE Facility in Minneapolis on Saturday during their unhinged “National F*ck ICE Day” meltdown.

United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon, appeared on Newsmax and told host Carl Higbie that the DOJ will explore the possibility of federal charges in the attack on Hernandez.

Carl Higbie: United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Harmeet Dhillon. Great to have you back on, ma’am. This is incredible that we’re actually having to have this conversation.

AAG Dhillon: Yeah, I mean, it’s all too familiar for me. I’ve been fighting for journalists under this kind of attack for, you know, close to a decade now, representing journalist Andy Ngo several years ago in an Antifa attack in Portland, Oregon. And since then, we’ve seen countless incidents like this.

And, you know, very concerning what happened to this young lady, this reporter, and I’ve been in touch with her team. And, you know, we have an open investigation, so I can’t get into any details.

Keep reading

EEOC chair makes appeal to white men who may have discrimination claims

Andrea Lucas, the chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), called on white men to come forward with employment and workplace discrimination complaints. 

Lucas said Wednesday in a video on the social platform X that white men may have a claim to recover money under federal civil rights laws, and should contact the EEOC as soon as possible. 

The EEOC, established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, enforces federal antidiscrimination laws in hiring or the workplace, which make it illegal for employers to discriminate against an applicant or employee because of their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability or genetic information.

“The EEOC is committed to identifying, attacking and eliminating all forms of race and sex discrimination, including against white male applicants and employees,” Lucas added.

Most employers with at least 15 employees and the majority of labor unions and employment agencies are subject to EEOC laws, according to the commission’s website. The laws apply to hiring, firing, promotions, trainings, wages and benefits. 

Lucas, appointed by President Trump in November, had served as acting chair since January. She has been on the commission since 2020, when Trump appointed her during his first term. 

Prior to her time at the EEOC, she worked at the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and clerked for U.S. District Judge James C. Cacheris. Cacheris, who died earlier this year, was appointed to his post in the Eastern District of Virginia by former President Reagan. 

On her LinkedIn page, Lucas promoted a page on the EEOC’s website concerning what people should do if they experience discrimination due to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies. The Trump administration has targeted federal DEI initiatives since the president returned to office in January.

Keep reading

John Lott Fires Back at Critics of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Defending 2A

Saying that gun rights are civil rights shouldn’t be controversial. After all, most of what we term as civil liberties are enshrined in the Bill of Rights, from freedom of speech and religion to protection against illegal search and seizure, and many others. The Second Amendment is smack dab in the middle of all of those. Saying the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right isn’t controversial; it’s obvious.

But some people can’t seem to wrap their gray matter around that.

Among them are some critics of the Department of Justice actually treating gun rights like civil rights, and John Lott has some words for those folks.

“The Civil Rights Division’s new focus on the Second Amendment, which is far outside its longstanding mission, is moving us even further away from our nation’s commitment to protecting all Americans’ civil rights,” said Stacey Young, a former division attorney who resigned shortly after the current administration took office.

The investigation into Los Angeles’ reluctance to grant concealed-carry permits has already drawn sharp criticism. “This is a gross misuse of the government’s civil rights enforcement authority,” said Christy Lopez, who served as deputy chief of the division under the Obama administration.

But poor black Americans — who face the highest risk of violent crime — gain the most from having the ability to protect themselves.

For women, the safest response when confronted by a criminal is to have a gun. Women who rely on passive behavior are 2.5 times more likely to suffer serious injury than women who use a firearm to defend themselves. Because criminals are overwhelmingly men, a woman attacked by a man faces a much larger strength imbalance than a man attacked by another man. A gun dramatically shifts that balance. It increases a woman’s ability to protect herself far more than it does for a man.

Background Check Errors Mostly Affect Blacks, Hispanics

Consider something as seemingly uncontroversial as background checks for gun purchases. Gun-control advocates often claim that the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) has stopped 5.1 million dangerous or prohibited people from buying guns since 1998. But more than 99 percent of these denials are false positives, and the errors fall disproportionately on law-abiding black and Hispanic men.

The impact of gun laws in general falls disproportionately on black and Hispanic men, even. And, in a world where people see disparity of outcomes as proof of racism, then maybe it’s time to re-evaluate all gun control laws.

Granted, I’m not someone who ascribes to that personally. I think it can be evidence of racism, but it’s not always. At least not directly, anyway.

Keep reading

Why the Supreme Court Shouldn’t Possess the Power to Bestow Individual Rights

The national anxiety over Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement from the Supreme Court of the United States seems disproportionate to size of the footnote he will occupy in history.

Why does it matter that one federal judge will retire?

An Elite Judicial Body

Robert Jackson was Solicitor General of the United States, Chief Prosecutor at the Nuremburg trials, and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. For his education, Jackson spent about a year at Albany Law School, reading the law, and passing the bar examination.

His story is an inconvenient truth in the era of big student loan debt. As debt soars, income stagnates, housing skyrockets, and 30-year olds bunk with roommates (or parents), a generation now awakens to a looming higher education crisis. Many are losing faith, looking to alternatives, or simply opting out.

Then again, when the Supreme Court issues its opinions each June, and 5 billion social media users morph into Robert Jackson, I am reminded that law is indeed a trained profession.

I know the government schools told us we are each entitled to our opinion. But there is a simple reason the Supreme Court does not poll the American public before stating its opinions. That is because it is, by definition, elite. It is nine lawyers rendering legal judgments about legal arguments, raised to them by other lawyers (all of whom studied law, and passed a bar examination).  

The Court is also not merely nine typical practitioners of an elite profession. To be on the Court you need to be exceptional.

A Robert Jackson, for example.

The Egalitarian Myth

Yet, it happens every year. Social media erupts with opinion every June—opinions for, or against the Court’s decisions. When Obergefell v. Hodges recognized a constitutional right to same-sex marriage in 2015, the White House lit up with rainbow colors. Major corporations responded by altering their logos to include rainbow colors.

So, is the legitimacy of a Supreme Court decision now measured against its popularity? Must we wait for the Court to catch up to popular opinion, or must popular opinion catch up to the Court?

In 2018’s Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Division, Justice Kennedy wrote for the majority: “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.”

It may be that “society” has come to these conclusions. But is it not bizarre that nine elite lawyers, sitting on the most elite court in the world, seem to speak on behalf of society?

Is that how self-government works?

Because no matter how egalitarian the Court’s decision is, anyone who thinks individual rights come from nine elite lawyers is about the furthest thing from being egalitarian. That person surely recognizes that popular approval is irrelevant to some legal questions.

So which questions? Is there any limit to what the Supreme Court gets to decide?

If only, there was some written framework. Like a sacred scroll or some tealeaves we could read.

Plain English

Surely, we do not believe that non-lawyers are incapable of understanding their own civil rights. To the contrary, that is exactly the point of a Constitution, written in plain English.

The question is not whether the Supreme Court ought to conform its decisions to popular will; it is whether the Court has stepped outside its authority altogether.

We cannot expect every person to become trained lawyers, or to read every Supreme Court opinion before opening a bakery, falling in love, or getting pregnant. Yet in 2018, the Court spilled gallons of inks telling more than a quarter-billion people about the existential meaning of cake.

Cake.

Keep reading