How does California (CA) have standing in CA vs Activision Blizzard?
<p>It's been reported that the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California" rel="nofollow noreferrer">state of California</a> (CA) has sued <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activision_Blizzard" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Activision Blizzard</a> as a result of its two-year-long investigation.</p>
<p>The alleged actions are not alleged to be ongoing.  It's been reported that this is a civil action.</p>
<p>I am puzzled by what that means in this context.  My limited understanding is that civil actions can only be taken to recoup damages (plus penalties for causing damages) or to stop ongoing behavior which is causing damages.</p>
<p>But the merit of the suit is reported to be a run-of-the-mill sexual harassment, which to my (again limited) knowledge is usually litigated by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice" rel="nofollow noreferrer">United States Department of Justice</a> (DOJ).  The DOJ is conspicuously absent from this law suit though.</p>
<p>I understand that states can sue firms when those firms cause states to increase certain expenses (increased healthcare outlays, for example).  But I am struggling to imagine what would be the increased costs to the state of CA if a certain firm engages in behavior which gives cause of action to the firm's past and current employees.</p>
<p>So what is the legal reason for CA having standing to sue?</p>

<p>A government always has standing to enforce violations of its own laws in its own jurisdiction. The harm to its legally protected interest is its interest in enforcing its own laws. While the forum here is a civil action, the basic concept is the same one that authorizes a government to enforce its own criminal laws.</p>
<p>Also, a government agency may seek fines and not merely compensatory damages or liquidated damages in lieu of compensatory damages, unlike private litigants in civil actions.</p>
<p>A civil government enforcement action is civil in the sense that only monetary damages and injunctive relief are sought, rather than incarceration, and that the court rules for civil actions apply (and as a result, the constitutional rights of criminal defendants are not invoked). But from a standing/political theory/legal theory perspective, this is almost like a quasi-criminal action in which restitution for the victims is also sought.</p>
<p>Many labor, consumer protection, health, safety and environmental laws authorize enforcement by a state agency through the attorney general, or in the alternative, by private litigants acting as a &quot;private attorney general.&quot;</p>
<p>In the area of employment discrimination, the usual situation is that you must first seek relief by filing a complaint with the appropriate agency, and then have a private cause of action to enforce your rights associated with the complaint only if and when the agency decides not to pursue the case with its own resources.</p>
<p>The harassment involved here is being conceptualized as a form of employment discrimination that is subject to that kind of regime.</p>
<p>This arrangement is legislatively favored because it provides a means by which people who can't afford attorneys can obtain relief.</p>

<p>The <a href="https://aboutblaw.com/YJw" rel="noreferrer">complaint</a> alleges that Activision Blizzard continues to underpay women (¶¶ 53-63), refuse to promote women (¶¶ 64-74), terminate women because of their sex (¶¶ 75-84), retaliate against women for opposing sex discrimination (¶¶ 85-94), and so on. So the allegation is that the unlawful conduct is ongoing.</p>
<p>It is also not correct to say that DOJ normally handles sexual harassment cases. In fact, I think it would be correct to say that it virtually never brings them. Instead, these cases are brought privately by the victims of sex discrimination, though they are sometimes brought by the EEOC.</p>
<p>Finally, it's worth noting that this case is being brought in state court under state law, so the notions of standing that so frequently trip up litigants in federal court do not necessarily pose the same barriers. <a href="https://casetext.com/case/weatherford-v-city-of-san-rafael" rel="noreferrer"><em>Weatherford v. City of San Rafael</em>, 2 Cal. 5th 1241, 1247-48 (2017)</a> (&quot;Unlike the federal Constitution, our state Constitution has no case or controversy requirement imposing an independent jurisdictional limitation on our standing doctrine.&quot;). Just the same, the allegations of ongoing illegal conduct would certainly be enough to establish standing in either forum.</p>

<p>From <a href="https://aboutblaw.com/YJw" rel="nofollow noreferrer">the complaint</a>, p. 9, DFEH brings the lawsuit for group relief in the public interest and on behalf of the female employees, citing CA code sections 12961 and 12965. Some kind of parens-patriae invocation, I suppose.</p>

california civil-law harassment standing