Lionhead Studios graphic designer sues Microsoft for harassment

by Ben Gilbert { Mar 24th 2009 at 9:20PM }

Jamie Durrant has been working for Lionhead Studios, stomping ground of Peter Molyneux and developer of the Fable franchise, for 11 years. In his time, he's worked on the Black & White series as well as both of the Fable games. As of last August though, Mr. Durrant has been out of work "sick" on half-pay, claiming sexual discrimination on the part of Microsoft. "I have been signed off sick since August with anxiety and depression," Durrant told us this morning.

The Surrey, UK resident is suing his employer, Microsoft (owner of Lionhead Studios), for £45,000/$66,000, money which will make up for "lost earnings and injury to feelings," according to the report on Telegraph.co.uk. A variety of names, laden with derogatory terms, were purportedly circulated in Durrant's tenure with the company as of late, referencing his sexual orientation: "'I'm Jim and I'm Gay," "Me and My Favourite Men," and "Ladies Are Bad," among others.

According to Durrant, when these abuses were reported to the Microsoft human resources department, the company did little to help him, apparently telling him they would circulate an email reminding employees of the company policy -- but they never followed through. When he inquired as to why it hadn't been sent a few weeks later, he was supposedly told that Microsoft would have to draft policy on the matter first. He told the Telegraph, "I was very surprised that Microsoft did not have any policies relating to this sexual orientation harassment." Less than a month ago we found out that the Microsoft Xbox Live team also have little-to-no policy written regarding sexual orientation discrimination.

When asked for more information, both Microsoft and Mr. Durrant have said they cannot comment on the still pending litigation. We'll have to wait until the London South Employment Tribunal hears his case "later this year" for more info.

Tags: black-and-white, derogatory, fable, fable-2, human-resources, jamie-durrant, lawsuit, lionhead-studios, london-south-employement-tribunal, microsoft, peter-molyneux, sexual-discrimination, telegraph.co.uk

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Dafrety @ Mar 24th 2009 9:25PM

I hope he wins, because this is just wrong. It's not like he's asking for an insane amount either, it converts to about $66,000 USD.

Lionbacker steamID: detfan1957 @ Mar 24th 2009 9:33PM

I agree. No one should have to work in an environment like that.

zuburi @ Mar 24th 2009 9:47PM

$66,000 is going to buy him a lot of those shorts.

Wait, this isn't Lt. Jim Dangle?

...

I'm getting banned, aren't I?

LaughingTarget @ Mar 24th 2009 10:08PM

I'm going to take a dissenting voice just to keep the discussion interesting.

Under the notion of private property, no person has the right to work at any place of employment they so desire without accepting the conditions of employment, however arbitrary, and employers have full rights to discriminate for whatever reason they feel necessary. The concept of anti-discrimination laws are in severe conflict with the idea that a person or entity is in full ownership of his property and resources.

For example, should I wish to start an engineering firm and reject any and all applicants who are not attractive blond females between the ages of 18 and 22, that is within my full rights to do so. However, I must also accept that by doing this, the quality of my product will suffer, I will not receive any business and I will be bankrupt within the year.

There are only two instances where a tort would be viable. First is if Microsoft or an agent of Microsoft violated the no harm principle. This means that Mr. Durrant either had to be physically battered or the immediate threat of physical battery (assualt) had to be present. Merely expressing opinions, however vile, insensitive or berating, is not a violation of this principle.

The second is if Microsoft violated an express (not some nebulous implied contract invented by courts trying to recreate the world to their image) contract with Mr. Durrant. If Microsoft contractually agreed, via the signed document or existing policy, to not engage in anti-homosexual behavior or any other behavior that makes a workplace feel threatening, regardless of express homosexual content, then a tort would be a viable option.

The protection of private property rights is the utmost key to creating a secure and prosperous society. Legal precedent that attempts to extend civil rights law to private individuals and the use of the private resources that individual has accumulated and is willing to risk is a violation of property rights. Forcing a person through legal threat to engage in an inclusive and non-discriminatory manner is counter productive in a private property society and can only exist in a society where all property is owned by the State and these societies always deteriorate and implode into a violent and lawless entity, either through anarchy of the people or anarchy of government.

Companies should fully be allowed to discriminate for whatever reason. If a company wishes to not hire blacks, gays, ugly people or whatever arbitrary system they so chose, they are in their full rights. However, they are fully responsible for whatever fallout this may create via lost workers, lost potential workers, lowered quality of products and a lost customer base via the lowered quality product and decreased reputation.

The only way this can work is if we do not protect existing companies from competition via regulatory channels. Any and all regulations are barriers to entry into a market and all regulations do little more than protect established businesses from competition. Monopolies can only exist in two forms, the form where they are truly the best choice and no alternatives can create a better working environment or product for the consumer or the monopolies created by Government intervention. Natural monopolies are good, destructive monopolies cannot exist in a truly free market society where governments only exist to protect the violent intrusions of property rights (ie, the company cannot block the entry of a competitor using courts, laws or force).

From this standpoint, unless Microsoft violated a contractual agreement, I fully wish for Mr. Durrant to lose this court claim as a handed victory is a flagrant violation of property rights in a free society and establishes the UK as a dictatorial regime where people merely live a peasants under elected lords.

(please note, I do not believe in discrimination and do not do so in my daily life for it has no purpose, however, I do not believe in forcing my beliefs on others at the end of a gun barrel, which is what a law does)

Rhamsey @ Mar 24th 2009 10:20PM

agreed, at least he isnt demanding 1million dollars for a 360 lost on a plane like some jackasses. he deserves to get paid, and a little extra for the lack of backup ms gave him. microsoft, i enjoy your products, but this is shameful, especially in this day and age.

The Dark Wayne @ Mar 24th 2009 10:50PM

TLDR even though I did read it

Fulluphigh @ Mar 24th 2009 10:53PM

Laughing Target, you would make a good point, except that's not completely what's being argued here.

He's sueing for being harassed. They have the right to discriminate, and not to hire him (And maybe to fire him, I don't know), as a company, but the employees themselves, and the company as a whole, are still held responsible for sexual harassment. Not discrimination, harassment.

The Dark Wayne @ Mar 24th 2009 10:56PM

in all seriousness im not sure i can agree with you laughing target. You say that government intervention creates bad monopolies, but that hardly seems to be the case in today's market. In the 1900s there was little to no intervention and many monopolies in many different areas, but it's clear from today's products that those areas could still have benefited from competition induced innovation even though there was no reason for them to innovate until things like the Sherman Anti trust act

CH3BURASHKA @ Mar 24th 2009 11:26PM

I also agree; however, why not sue Lionhead? Don't they control such policies and act upon them? Something smells here, and it ain't the sea bass.

@Laughing Target: Holy crap dude.

Saria the Cat @ Mar 24th 2009 11:39PM

@LaughingTarget: You better be talking about the wacky UK and not U.S., because shit's not the same over here. You most definitely cannot discriminate based on race, gender, or sexual orientation when hiring.

Saria the Cat @ Mar 24th 2009 11:41PM

@Laughing Target: After re-reading, I do believe you are joking in any case.

Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Mar 24th 2009 11:42PM

Laughing target

As others have intimated there is a huge difference in discrimination and harassment. Obviously the guy was and still is qualified or he wouldn't have kept a job this long. It's not acceptable to create an environment in the work place where harassment of any kind is acceptable. If you want to hire nothing but people who look like you it's well within your right. However, once you hire someone else you need to have a workplace where someone won't be harassed based on their gender, religon, sexual orientation, familial status or age.

Besides, we have had the good ole boy network for far to long in this country and it stifles innovation. But, thats another conversation for another topic and isn't relevant much like your entire carefully framed argument.

smartguy1600 @ Mar 25th 2009 12:11AM

@ saria:

Interestingly enough, Sexual Orientation is NOT one of the things you cannot discriminate against. You cannot discriminate against:

Sex, National Origin ,Race, Religion, Color, Age, Disability (SNORRCAD)

While it is currently being legislated for, Sexual Orientation is not in there. However, sexual harassment, as many have said, is different than discrimination. And he has every right to sue based on these claims.

Saria the Cat @ Mar 25th 2009 12:29AM

@smartguy: Oh, man, you're right! I'm from California and here there is a state law that bans discrimination based upon sexual orientation. I mistakenly figured it was federal. Embarrassing that the entire rest of the country isn't on board. :S

John @ Mar 25th 2009 2:38AM

Actually it's embarrassing that we have the laws we do. I think it's fine for a government agency to have anti-discrimination laws, but the govenrment has no business telling a private individual how to run their business, unless they are getting government support (startup grants, tax breaks, etc).

If I start a business and only want to hire people of italian descent, it is no business of the state or federal government as they assume no financial responsibility for the success or failure of my business, unless I'm AIG or and airline I guess.

Saria the Cat @ Mar 25th 2009 2:54AM

@John: I don't see any ethical basis for a business to discriminate in such a way. Can you give an example?

John @ Mar 25th 2009 5:43AM

How about because it's your money going into the business and you risk if it fails so you can run it any damn way you want to?

Regulating morality is immoral.

John @ Mar 25th 2009 5:50AM

How about because it's YOUR money and YOU assume the risk when you start a business and you should be able to run it any damn way you want to?

How is it ok for some people to have their ethics legislated on everyone, but not others?

Personally I don't care who works for me if they are making me money, but If you don't like certain people, unless the government has some vested interest in your business, they should keep out of how you run it.

Maverick Saturn @ Mar 25th 2009 6:27AM

@ Saria the Cat: Erm ...what? We descriminate based on race, gender etc when hiring? Since when? I've lived here all my life and never known of this.

Nick8708 @ Mar 25th 2009 7:56AM

While I abhor discrimination for any reason, anti-discrimination laws shouldn't affect private businesses. Freedom means, among other things, freedom of association which means literally the freedom to choose with whom you associate. If you privately own a business and don't like certain people for certain reasons, you should have every right to not hire them or serve them. You do that at your own peril, of course, since you'd be denying employment to potentially very valuable employees for terrible reasons, and losing business because you'd alienate not just the demographic you discriminate against, but anybody whom finds your business practices distasteful.

The best way for the government to actively combat discrimination in business, if they wish to interfere in the private sector, isn't by force, but by putting in place incentives that encourage companies to adopt anti-discrimination policies. One way would be to give tax breaks to companies with documented anti-discrimination policies and violations of said policies could then be allowed to be taken to court and not only result in compensation to the person(s) bringing the suit, but loss of the tax break.

The reason I think this would be a better approach is two-fold. First, it'd be a lesser interference in private businesses and thus less of an encroachment on the liberty of private citizens. Secondly, and most importantly, people are generally more accepting of change when it is in their best interests to do so and by providing incentives to have these policies (instead of having the policies enforced by law) it is optional and completely up to the business owner's discretion. Certainly there are people out there close minded enough that they'd be willing to forgo a tax break (and thus forgo a higher profit margin) just to retain the ability to exercise discriminatory practices, but they'd be far outweighed by those who are willing to implement anti-discriminatory policies (whether because they believe in equality for all or simply want the tax break) and ultimately run out of business by companies with higher profitable and better reputations with access to a larger pool of talented, hard working employees.

The difference between my idea and current law is that mine is positive reinforcement for progressive policies rather than negative reinforcement for violations of law. Anybody who has studied behavioral science knows which has better, longer lasting results.

Anyways, if his claims are true I hope he wins his lawsuit. I was struck by how reasonable an amount he is seeking. It's satisfying to see someone not making a mockery of the court system by just looking for a big payout. Kudos to him.

John @ Mar 25th 2009 8:19AM

You make an excellent and workable point, the problem is, you are posting it on joystiq, where the majority of people think that anyone who hurts someone else's feelings should be treated like crap, and policies to avoid hurt feelings should be drawn up and enforced with enthusiasm by jack booted thugs.

xGeneral DEATHx @ Mar 25th 2009 8:34AM

I'm a bit late to the party here, but I just wanted to reiterate the thoughts of another poster that I read yesterday:

The events of the movie Demolition Man are coming true, and we're turning into a society chock-full of pansy-ass whiners.

Nick8708 @ Mar 25th 2009 8:41AM

@John

I'm not worried about that. I think reasonable people can understand my idea is actually a better way of promoting the same sort of behavior we're trying to force by law now. Anti-discrimination laws aren't about avoiding hurt feelings, but instead about allowing people equal access to opportunities. While they are somewhat effective at that, they don't address the cause of discrimination at all and are only effective in changing attitudes towards different people only insofar as more people are exposed to people of different backgrounds and lifestyles and may, in time, lead to acceptance. There is no incentive the accept other people, just a penalty for not doing so.

By making it optional, and giving good incentives to choose to implement anti-discrimination policies, you're effectively giving them a reason to accept people different from themselves. Saying that accepting others is right and fair is something all bigots have heard before. Giving business people business reasons for acceptance is a better step towards changing their attitudes while infringing less on the liberty than current legislation.

Douche Bigalow @ Mar 24th 2009 9:25PM

Funny, he _looks_ like a man ... I'd think he'd have some balls.

But please. Microsoft not responding to an HR complaint? I don't buy it. That place is PC central.

jcmschwa @ Mar 24th 2009 9:59PM

props on the pun.

Cj @ Mar 24th 2009 9:25PM

I just don't understand why Sexuality isnt part of Micorsofts employee regulations and Xbox Live. Its a human aspect. People being mistreated because of it is wrong. With all this Homophobic MS stuff on the web, they are getting some bad publicity. GLBT groups are gonna be all over MS eventually. I as a gaymer myself isnt very upset about this but the Xbox Live thing i was. He took harassment from co workers? Man up and slap the fuck out of them.

The Dark Wayne @ Mar 24th 2009 9:26PM

i dont think slapping is the best way to regain manliness....

Cj @ Mar 24th 2009 9:27PM

If you get them to shit them selves then yes. Or just punch, slap would be the way to say "Im gay and beating u the fuck up" :P

MF Doom @ Mar 24th 2009 9:29PM

yeah, because that's totally something you do at the workplace.

you totally wouldn't get fired, or anything like that.

Cj @ Mar 24th 2009 9:31PM

Take it outside? Idk, employees should be harrased at the work place but yet it was done? What ever goes at Lion Head?

Ignatius @ Mar 24th 2009 10:04PM

Funny that Microsoft has sexual orientation policies for its customers, but not its employees.

LaughingTarget @ Mar 24th 2009 10:14PM

The moment you resort to physical violence leaves you not only defenseless in any court of law, it allows the individual you just attacked full and unquestioned reprisal to your actions.

For example, if you somehow mistook something I said or did as anti-homosexual (mistakes are far more common in today's society than real attacks) and, as you say, "slapped me down", I would be fully within my rights to put you into a coma through a viscous beating because you violated my personal space and the no-harm principle. Furthermore, in the state I live in, a Castle Doctrine state, you would be fully blocked from any criminal or civil suits, leaving you unable to take me to court to recoup the devastating financial loss and lifelong debt from the extended medical care required.

The moral of the story: always be diplomatic. Never go off half-cocked for whatever reason and, unless you live in California, New York or Illinois where they tolerate people being violent for retarded reasons, never attack a person because you may end up on the receiving end of a life-as-you-know-it-ending defensive action that you have no legal resort to reclaim the damages.

Fish Face McGee @ Mar 24th 2009 11:21PM

Technically, sexuality policy is a part of Xbox Live. The policy is don't ask, don't tell, don't talk about it. It doesn't matter if you say you're straight or gay, it's not allowed to be discussed on Xbox Live, period. If you wish to violate that policy by stating that you're gay in your bio or gamertag, that's your own fault and you will be suspended for having inappropriate content in your profile information. Once again, that's not just for delcaration of lesbian or gay orientation, buy any. If someone has something saying that they're straight in their bio, they'll be suspended, too.

Tremada @ Mar 25th 2009 12:09AM

@ Laughing Target
Just curious, you could put anyone into a coma from your end-of-life-as-you-know-it beatings? Are you a ninja attorney? That's bad ass! You'll kill them verbally and physically....

aristokrat @ Mar 25th 2009 2:08PM

Laughing Target:

You must live in the coolest state ever if the Punisher himself has introduced and successfully passed legislation that makes his actions legal (re: you fuck with me and I will end you). Who knew Mr. Frank Castle was as good a politician as he is an ass-kicker?

The Dark Wayne @ Mar 24th 2009 9:25PM

sick with anxiety and depression, that's genius! Week off here I come!

Ample Salty @ Mar 24th 2009 9:26PM

'Oh come on guys, I get enough abuse on XBL without you starting too!'

tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 24th 2009 9:27PM

It really sucks that we have to still deal with this in 2009. I mean really lets evolve a little bit people.

I hate to go offtopic a bit, but that secret that me johnny and sly cooper have? I have permission to talk about it friday so I'll do it on the next WRUP (at least I'm pretty sure that's on a friday night) since that's the best place I could think of. Didn't want to distract from an important article too much...like this one sadly. Sorry :D

MF Doom @ Mar 24th 2009 9:28PM

Is one of the commenters now a journalist or something? Making it hard for me not to have big ideas.

tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 24th 2009 9:33PM

Yes joystiq hired me to be their new Nintendo coverage guy. Anyone think they're biased now just wait muhahahaha.

But no it's not that. Just keep your eyes peeled for the next WRUP, if it's not friday night then whenever that is.

Moptimus Slime (Leader of the Taylor Swift Defense Force, Gobot in disguise) @ Mar 24th 2009 9:38PM

you're forming your own development studio and are working on a downloadable game

tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 24th 2009 9:42PM

I'm not saying anything more about it until Friday.

Johnny and Sly if you see this don't even give anymore hints away. Please keep patiently waiting until then :D

~Snipes~ (PSN slycooper_rocker) @ Mar 24th 2009 11:11PM

but we're getting tired of waiting! it's way too good to keep quiet! but i will. it's only 3 days...

Bissy Boy (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Mar 24th 2009 11:54PM

The thing we have to be very careful about this announcement because if any news of it leaked out then it would kill all the carefully orchestrated hype the three of us have built up over the last week or so.

I took it upon myself to be the lead on this and as soon as the embargo is lifted (we have agreed in principal to a WRUP reveal but nothing is set in stone) I will see it through to the end.

I really think no matter what the announcement was at this point some people will undoubtedly be let down. Now, I blame myself for this because I pulled a Sony and let the cat out of the bag before I should have. Needless to say some of you will forever be reminded of the day because the mountain dew will always be one with your keyboard and monitor.

=)

Can you tell this is fun?

tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 25th 2009 12:11AM

"My personal guess is that you either are all going to reveal you work for sony"

Wrong.

"Either way it's sony related"

Wrong again.

"And of course you and Joystiq have a lil sweet deal going on."

errr...Steeeeeerike 3 ur out. I'm not even sure what you mean there. None of the joystiq staff knows what it is either, and it has nothing to do with forming a studio or else we would let them know ahead of time. Shilling on someone else's website's just not cool man.

No, this....is much bigger than that. Most of us will remember what is said Friday, even you probably.

But seriously now I'm done talking about it and hyping it. No more words about it until friday, for real this time.

j.howlett @ Mar 25th 2009 12:30AM

what's all the hub bub, bub?

Saria the Cat @ Mar 25th 2009 12:56AM

OMG TEHY R ALL GURLZ THATS THE SECRET GUYS

tmacairjordan87 @ Mar 25th 2009 1:04AM

Change that, some of the joystiq staff knows what it is now. Had to reassure them I'm not promoting or shilling anything, so it's all good now :D

Oh and don't even think about bugging them about it either, wouldn't want to risk getting banned just because you were too impatient :P