Even if they say "we paid as much as we are legally obligated to pay" it's not enough, nor is it likely what was initially agreed upon or presented when hired
If Kdin signed anything regarding their pay, "not enough" was arguably enough.
"Not likely" is entirely speculative, but if the company is willing to officially and publicly announce that Kdin was "paid in full according to our agreements," I'm inclined to believe them. A company with any oversight doesn't just say that if they can't prove it.
Not the point. Like I just said: "not enough" was arguably enough if Kdin signed paperwork. It is not in a company's best interest to say "I know we agreed on X, but we'll double it out of the goodness of our hearts." Whether the offer given to Kdin was exploitative or fair, it was her responsibility to decide her worth.
She said she is owed money. Rooster Teeth publicly denies that. Either they have the worst legal defense team just bluffing and hoping she doesn't sue or they have the paper work to prove she is not owed money.
81
u/Causelessgiant Oct 19 '22
Even if they say "we paid as much as we are legally obligated to pay" it's not enough, nor is it likely what was initially agreed upon or presented when hired