"Soto and Blauert also allege that ... the company violated state law by failing to provide a safe workplace for them and should have realized how harmful viewi

"Soto and Blauert also allege that ... the company violated state law by failing to provide a safe workplace for them and should have realized how harmful viewing such images should have been for their employees." They might have some valid claims and expectations in their suit, but some of their allegations don't really sound reasonable. For example, the above. Of course Microsoft knew that viewing these videos is very psychologically disturbing. Hence why they hired moderators to find and censor them, on a voluntary at-will contract. If we're going to fault Microsoft for exposing their moderators to disturbing content, what exactly do we expect them to do instead? Not have such moderators and allow members of the public to be exposed to these highly disturbing videos instead? The lawsuit sounds a bit too much like firemen suing the fire department because "fighting fires creates an unsafe workspace that is harmful to firemen." If the fire department didn't do everything it can to help its firemen, the lawsuit would certainly be reasonable. But blaming the fire department for the intrinsic and unavoidable dangers involved in the job, doesn't sound reasonable at all.