There are tons of news sources reporting that Microsoft (formerly Lionshead Studios) game designer Jamie Durrant, 38, is suing Microsoft for £45,000 after a series of what he says were homophobic and discriminatory incidents at work. That’s just over $66,000 for those of you on this side of the pond. (And yes, the picture is him via Flickr - he looks like a cool enough dude, doesn’t he???)
When I read this story, I have to admit that I was prepared to hate the guy. Now, I’m all for gay rights, but I feel that sexuality – no matter what your preference – should be left in your personal life, not at work. I also feel that a lot of people take advantages of companies by suing for “pain and suffering.” Its bullshit. How do you put a fair price on that?
But I digress.
I went into reading this article fueled for a fight, so to speak, with some idiot gay guy who was crying about a situation that really didn’t matter. I feel like many (read: not all) homosexuals act no better than the feminists I hate so much. Being gay (or female, or fat, or black, or whatever) does not give you the right to be a “victim” in every situation. After learning a bit about the story, though, I’ve changed my mind. In fact, if he’s really telling the truth, you can count me as part of his cheering section. Jamie Durrant, if you’re reading this, I hope you get every penny you’ve asked for.
Here’s why I was prepared to hate Jamie…and why, instead, I like him (again, granted that he isn’t elaborating or lying, which is entirely possible, but I like to give people the benefit of the doubt):
- You can’t be easily offended in a work environment.
Point number one – I was prepared to hate this lawsuit because, in general, people need to grow some damn balls. I hate how “politically correct” everyone has to be, and how the littlest expression of opinion can lead to major drama. Yes, even if you are a baby-eating, murdering, sexist, homophobic, racist Nazi bastard, I still believe that you have the right to express your opinions, as long as you are doing so in the right forum. Work…ok, well that’s probably not the
right forum, but at the same time, I believe that you’re entitled to your own opinion, and it isn’t the company’s fault if you express that opinion.
There’s a line that has to be drawn, though. If your expression of opinion is making it impossible or someone else to do their job, that’s going too far. This guy was getting homophobic emails and reading homophobic statements about himself posted in the office’s communal break space. A person shouldn’t have to be scared to go to work, or at least not scared of employees. I won’t put words in his mouth and say he was scared per se (it doesn’t seem as though there were threats), but you shouldn’t have to dread passive-aggressive behavior at the office.
- If you’re upset, do something about it.
Point two – I hate when people file lawsuits for sexual harassment and the like, but they didn’t have the common sense to do anything about it. So, I was prepared to hate Jamie for not filing a complaint with HR or speaking to his higher ups. However, according to him, he did…on multiple occasions. And if what he says is true, they not only made promises they didn’t keep, but they admitted to not having policies to deal with his problem.
Basically, it sounds like they just were hoping he’d go away.
Now, I have to say, I’d be VERY surprised if Microsoft didn’t have any discriminatory policy, but with such a large company, each office/sector/whatever needs to have their own policies. I’m sure that Microsoft’s policy includes bringing up the matter with a superior or HR. They ignored him when he asked for help. I don’t care if you have an official policy or not. When someone comes to you with a major internal problem, you fix it…that’s what your job is when you’re in HR. If you don’t know how to fix it, you ask your boss, and he/she asks the next higher boss and so forth until someone makes a decision about what to do. This wasn’t an isolated incident. This was a long-term problem.
- It isn’t an employer’s fault if the person they hire turns out to be homophobic.
“Great resume. Now, are you afraid of gay people?”
It isn’t really a question brought up at job interviews. Why should Microsoft have to pay for employees who are boneheads? At least, that’s what I was prepared to think.
But you know what? He isn’t suing over the comments. He’s suing the company over the lack of policy and lack of help resolving the situation so he could just do his job. And frankly, that is their fault – and the HR people should be fired.
- Pain and suffering is bullshit.
The last point I want to make is that I think most “pain and suffering” lawsuits are complete bullshit. I mean, if you’re going to have lingering pain the rest of your life because someone ran you over, that’s one thing. But just because someone makes you upset doesn’t meant that you’re entitled to a million dollars. So, when I heard that the lawsuit was over “hurt feelings” (that’s how most websites are billing it), I was prepared for an argument.
Let’s get one thing clear, though. Hurt feelings are not the same as depression.
I’ve suffered from depression, and I’ve seen friends suffer from depression. People with depression have a tendency towards it when life gets tough because their brains are wired differently and aren’t producing the right chemicals. Some are more affected than others. But when you have to dread harassment at work every day, when it makes you sick to your stomach to think about facing the guy at the next desk…well, if you’re prone to depression, its going to do a lot more than hurt your feelings.
I think he was crying out for help. He wanted to resolve the issue and do his job, not take off time from work. Yes, I do think Microsoft’s lack of help pushed him into the medical leave, and he lost a lot of money as a result. Depression is consuming, and I think that the amount he’s asking for is TOTALLY justifiable when you add up his lost wages – and I’m sure he has medical bills to pay as well. He’s not asking for a million dollars here.
And you know what? Even if he doesn’t get his money, I’m glad he sued – and I think he will be as well. Because you can be DAMN SURE that every Microsoft office is going to have discrimination policies from now on.
Popularity: 1% [?]
Loading ...
You are totally right. And so is the guy. People have to learn how to respect other people’s lives. You don’t like gays, ok, you’re an asshole, but regardless of being gay, or black, or female, or fat, they’re people. And people who work with other people MUST know how to respect differences and understand that in an office, they’re there to work, not to have sex. So, what difference does it make to you? This kind of obsession for what other people do in their private lives is kinda lame. When you see this kind of behavior, it’s easy to tell these people have real problems.
The worst thing about an article like this is that it’s written as well as you could possibly write it, and your enlightened conclusion is as deep as you’ll likely *ever* sound. After the opening BS about “feminists” you “hate so much” (with a link to what??) and “blacks” being “victims”, the entire thing reads like a chunk from Idiocracy’s script. I’m amazed you didn’t nickname anyone “scrot” after the first paragraph. It’s hard to believe this article is NOT satire. You make every single person in the gaming/tech industry look like complete idiots. And you’ve pretty much sealed the fate of Gamekicker.com and Bingegamer.net in the process. Let’s hope they enjoy the “whimsy” of contributors like yourself, they’ll be banking on it in ‘09.
Don’t hold back, Mr. Turing. I want to know how you REALLY feel.
*cheers madly* well put – i work in tech support for a gaming company – i think you nailed.
and the reason we are so p.c. is because of mr. turning there – who’s opinions are the only ones that matter from the looks of it. this is your opinion on the matter, and i do not look like and idiot because of it…at least i looked in the mirror and didn’t see a floppy hat with bells on my head – nope, don’t look like an idiot.
i hear it on the phone all the time that if we continue on the track we are on we will fail.
welp – profits are up
What the HELL a re you talking about!? This article was written as if YOU were suing Microsoft, or as if somehow the story of your life and views IS the news to report.
How about reporting the actual occurrence before you start telling us HOW it made you side with the guy.
I read through the whole thing, hoping i would eventually get some details about what happened / why he’s suing.
Fail.
This isn’t a news article. Go to kotaku if you want press releases. I gave you not one, but three links to non-opinion pieces in the very first sentence where you could read about the case. Because virtually every gaming news source reported the same facts, I wasn’t going to sit here and repeat the entire article over again. I gave you a brief understanding of the issue (“Jamie Durrant, 38, is suing Microsoft for £45,000 after a series of what he says were homophobic and discriminatory incidents at work.”) Along with links to find out more.
I’m glad you think I fail at reporting news…because I wasn’t writing a news article.
How condescending. You talk about homosexuals in the same breath as feminists, like they are dome kind of breed or race.
The issue here really has nothing to do with the chap liking cock, but rather the claim that Lionhead did nothing while a member of its staff was bullied and hassled quietly from within.
The fact that you were so eager to dismiss his complaint before checking it out simply because you claim ‘homosexuals complain to much about things’ just puts you in the same moronic mindset as those workmates he claims were making his life hell.
Keith Andrew
I never said ‘homosexuals complain to[sic] much about things’. I said that many homosexuals use that fact about themselves to have a victim mindset. I believe that I also noted that MANY different kinds of people use a characteristic about themselves to be a victim all the time. So, when I saw a lawsuit against a reputable company, yes, my immediate thought was that someone was using a victim mentality to try to make some money. That kind of thing happens ALL THE TIME. I would have thought the same about anyone who uses anything “minority” characteristic as the basis of a lawsuit.
If you actually read my article, you see that the whole thing was me admitting that I was wrong to assume that from the start.
You say: “The issue here really has nothing to do with the chap liking cock, but rather the claim that Lionhead did nothing while a member of its staff was bullied and hassled quietly from within.”
Exactly. Thanks for agreeing with me.
“Now, I’m all for gay rights-”
Is that a bit like “Now, I’m not a racist but…” ?
If you genuinely believe that workplace harrassment doesn’t exist as a concept, and that anybody should be required to keep their sexual orientation a secret from their coworkers, I have to wonder how old you are what sort of sheltered/backward/Amish* environment you were raised and educated in.
You did at least manage to reach some vaguely open-minded conclusions I guess, just a shame you didn’t think to revisit the opening paragraphs to dial down the unpleasantness. Pointing out that you harbour prejudiced attitudes by default in a published article is probably not going to endear you to potential employers.
*JOKING
Nail on the head.
You’ve said what I’ve been trying to say in two far longer posts in one, short reply.
Keith Andrew
I absolutely 100% believe that sexuality should be left out of the workplace,which is what I said in this post. That’s not the same as keeping something a secret, but at the same time, I would never discuss whether I’m gay or straight with employees or bosses. I believe that an office is a place to do work, and nothing more.
And when did I ever say that workplace harassment doesn’t exist? I think this whole article proves that I DO think workplace harassment exists.
Furthermore, what “potential employer” do you think I’m trying to impress? For the record, if I was looking for a job, I’d be happy to have an employer read this article, though I don’t know why that would be relevant unless I was applying for a writing job and they wanted a sample of my work.
As for “dialing down” the beginning…why in the world would I do that? The article would make NO SENSE. The whole point of this piece was to show how you can read a sensationalized headline on one site (and yes, many of them were sensationalized, claiming that he was suing over “hurt feelings”) and form an immediate WRONG impression of someone.
I believe you both are missing the point, which I’ve made clear several times now. Let me spell it out for you one more time: I read a headline (multiple headlines actually) of a guy suing a reputable employer. Every headline made reference to the fact that his lawsuit was related to him being gay. My initial impression was an eye role not because I’m prejudiced against gay people (seriously, if you knew me, that would make you laugh), but because many lawsuits are pulled out of thin air when someone uses a “victim” quality about themselves. Ie, “I’m gay, so how can I use that to sue” or “I’m female, so how can I use that to sue” or black or disabled or WHATEVER. Upon reading more about the case, I learned that my initial impression was wrong, so I wrote why I thought he should win his case.
I really don’t know how to be clearer than that, so if you still want to question and debate my own views on gay rights (which I didn’t even express in this article other than to simply say I’m pro gay rights, since his homosexuality had little to do with the actual piece I wrote), continue to have at it…but don’t expect me to continue to respond.
If *that’s* your view, then I suggest you need to have a read back through your article and actually check what you said, because this piece focuses almost entirely on the sexuality of the chap in question, and misses the point in the process.
Yes, your article attempts to explain why your initial view was wrong, but all you do is dig yourself in a little deeper. The fundamental mistake you made, and continue to make, is to suggest that homosexuals – or, indeed, any ‘minority’ group – as having characteristics en masse.
Your conclusion that Mr. Durrant is right to make his claim and should win is, I believe, the correct one, but that point is completely muddied by the bile you spout at the beginning.
This could have been a progressive piece talking about how Durrant’s case raises the question of just how open workplaces should be and whether the games industry is lagging behind on that score, but instead it’s simply a very long winded way of saying you have rather backward views that you were prepared to overlook in this case.
Keith Andrew
Keith, You should the above comment I left, as it is targeted to your comments here as well.
I did want to respond to some things you said here as well, though.
“The fundamental mistake you made, and continue to make, is to suggest that homosexuals – or, indeed, any ‘minority’ group – as having characteristics en masse.”
Being homosexual is a characteristic. So is being female. So is being white. So is having green eyes. So is being tall. These are all characteristics of a person. I never made reference to any group of people having characteristics en masse.
I do believe that PEOPLE have some characteristics en masse. And, like I’ve said, I believe one characteristic you find in many people is the willingness to give in to a victim mentality. That’s true whether you’re gay or straight – some people just find a reason they COULD be persecuted and use it for the basis of a lawsuit.
I made it clear from my opening paragraph that this was a piece going over the points why I thought this lawsuit, which could have been from anyone using ANY characteristic about themselves, was bullshit…and why I was wrong. If you want to write something about “how open workplaces should be” or “whether the games industry is lagging behind on that score”, go ahead and do it on a blog of your own. Mine article had nothing to do with those two subject matters. If you want to keep reading into it and finding things that aren’t there, be my guest, but as I’ve mentioned above, this piece had nothing to do with my thoughts and opinions on homosexuality, and I’m not going to explain that again.
No, being homosexual is not “a characteristic”, but we’re going off at an angle there. I didn’t comment on this piece to drag the debate towards sexuality semantics.
Back on topic, if you’re trying to suggest that you feel we live in a ‘claim culture’ these days, where people look to exploit the system to make money (which has validity) then *say* that.
Instead, what you actually suggested was that you believe gay (or, indeed black or female) people often look for a way to use their sexuality to their advantage in that respect, and *that’s* what makes your piece read like the arsey mess it is. Seriously, take a read of the opening few paragraphs. Whether you’re homophobic or not, what you’ve written makes you sound like you’re from Backwards City, and completely undermines the rest of the piece.
If that’s not a fair reflection of your views, then that’s something you, or your editor, should have spotted before these piece went live. It still being here in its current state doesn’t do you or the website in general any favours whatsoever.
Keith Andrew
How is being homosexual not a characteristic?
The problem that remains, for me, is this: You are presupposing that anyone entering into the often protracted, stressful, expensive, career-, health- and relationship-damaging process of trying to sue their employer for compensation would be likely to be doing so on false pretenses.
“I’m gay, so how can I use that to sue†– this is how you try to argue that you’re not prejudiced?
You’re backpedalling now, but the 4th paragraph of the original piece (“I went into reading this article fueled for a fight…”) makes your views pretty unambiguous.
Not to jump into other peoples discussions .. but.. oh what the hell…
I believe you read the article wrong (or, even after having the writer’s, Allison’s, clarification, you refuse to accept it).
I’m not sure if you are arguing just to argue at this point, or you are in complete denial that people abuse “the system” (no matter of race, handicap, sexual preference, etc) .. how say you?
The question was never whether people abuse the system – that’s the culture of things these days. The problem folk have with the article is the way Alison thinks it purely applies to minorities, and that it tainted her view on an issue that really had nothing to do with someone being gay or not.
The article essentially reads, “now, usually I’m an arsehole, but maybe this gay guy actually has a point, on this ONE occassion…”
Keith Andrew, to my way of thinking you are a bore. You are arguing just for arguing’s sake and not in a very nice way, using cheap expressions to make your point. What Aklison has written has a lot of good in it. It’s not a great piece of literature, but I agree with most of it.
Not sure why more people don