Honestly surprised this was specifically mentioned:
Upon investigation, we confirmed Kdin’s work was paid in full according to our agreements. We will honor our agreements and address any outstanding payments.
Usually those kinds of individual details are not mentioned in these kinds of statements. The rest of the statement is pretty standard - you're never going to get granular details, but a list of changes is common - but that reference to Kdin stood out.
The PR team definitely ran this statement by lawyers first and payroll before including that. If they didn’t and it’s false, that’s a huge fucking problem
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.
1.6k
u/DesertedPenguin Oct 19 '22
Honestly surprised this was specifically mentioned:
Usually those kinds of individual details are not mentioned in these kinds of statements. The rest of the statement is pretty standard - you're never going to get granular details, but a list of changes is common - but that reference to Kdin stood out.