Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Judge Rejects $324M Settlement Proposal in Apple, Google Class-Action Anti-Poaching Lawsuit

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,481
30,717



Judge Lucy Koh today rejected the settlement deal that Apple, Google, Intel, and Adobe had reached with tech workers over a lawsuit involving anti-poaching agreements, reports CNBC.

According to court documents, Koh believes the total settlement "falls below the range of reasonableness," compared to the $20 million settlement that Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Intuit reached with tech employees in 2013. Proportionally, based on that settlement, Apple and the other tech companies should have to pay out at least $380 million.

apple_google_logo-800x283.jpg
The Court finds the total settlement amount falls below the range of reasonableness. The Court is concerned that Class members recover less on a proportional basis from the instant settlement with the Remaining Defendants than from the Settled Defendants a year ago, despite the fact that the case has progressed consistently in the Class's favor since then. Counsel's sole explanation for this reduced figure is that there are weaknesses in Plaintiff's case such that the Class faces a substantial risk of non-recovery. However, that risk existed and was even greater when Plaintiffs settled with the Settled Defendants a year ago, when class certification had been denied. [...]

Using the Settled Defendants' settlements as a yardstick, the appropriate benchmark settlement for the Remaining Defendants would be at least $380 million, more than $50 million greater than what the instant settlement provides.
Click to expand...
Tech workers initially levied the class action anti-poaching lawsuit against the companies in 2011, accusing them of creating no-hire agreements and conspiring not to poach employees from one another in an effort to keep salaries lower.

No-solicitation agreements revealed during the lawsuit dated back to 2005, involving Apple, Google, Intel, Adobe, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar, among others. The agreements prevented company recruiters from contacting employees placed on specific no-contact lists.

The United States Department of Justice stepped in back in 2010, ordering the companies to stop entering anti-poaching agreements, but the class-action civil lawsuit brought against the companies by 64,000 employees will remain open until a suitable settlement can be reached. The suit originally asked for $3 billion in damages, a significantly higher number than the 324 million agreed upon in April.

Article Link: Judge Rejects $324M Settlement Proposal in Apple, Google Class-Action Anti-Poaching Lawsuit
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2014/08/08/anti-poaching-settlement-rejected/
NT1440

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
14,620
20,787
Good, silicon valley as a whole stole billions in wages for employees through this scheme. The payout should be much higher.


That said, this is in a country where Bank of America is about to pay $17 Billion for their illegal acts that helped tear down the economy, but resulted in hundreds of billions in profit at the time.

We live in a pay to play corporatocracy, and good on this judge for holding out for more.
 
AngerDanger

AngerDanger

Graphics
Staff member
Dec 9, 2008
5,452
29,002
I don't know about everybody else, but I can't wait for Apple and Google to address all this romantic tension and just kiss already! :p
 
Mousse

Mousse

macrumors 68040
Apr 7, 2008
3,489
6,708
Flea Bottom, King's Landing
My question is: Did the tech worker's side accept the settlement?

Who gives a rat's derriere what the Judge thinks if the tech worker's side is okay with the settlement.
 
John.B

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,193
705
Holocene Epoch
Typical class action lawsuit settlement: the lawyers are well paid while the actual plaintiffs get a pittance. Instead of compensating the lawyers based on the potential total settlement amount, I'd like to see them get a fixed percentage of the actual cash value/redeemed value of the plaintiff settlements. That's the only way (IMO) to get the plaintiffs interests adequately represented.
 
G

G4DP

macrumors 65816
Mar 28, 2007
1,451
3
Mousse said:
My question is: Did the tech worker's side accept the settlement?

Who gives a rat's derriere what the Judge thinks if the tech worker's side is okay with the settlement.
Click to expand...

Exctly. If both sides agree, the judge should have no say in the matter. Unless she just wants more media attention, which sadly seems to be the case here.
 
Small White Car

Small White Car

macrumors G4
Aug 29, 2006
10,966
1,463
Washington DC
Mousse said:
My question is: Did the tech worker's side accept the settlement?

Who gives a rat's derriere what the Judge thinks if the tech worker's side is okay with the settlement.
Click to expand...

Because the companies broke the law. This is not just a civil lawsuit.

It appears that the government is stepping back and letting the lawsuit act as the punishment, but should the workers just give up and say "never mind" then the government would have to step in and do something.

So based on that, yes, they do have an interest in how the 'punishment' ends up.
 
T

theheadguy

macrumors 65816
Apr 26, 2005
1,156
1,385
california
G4DP said:
Exctly. If both sides agree, the judge should have no say in the matter. Unless she just wants more media attention, which sadly seems to be the case here.
Click to expand...
Mousse said:
My question is: Did the tech worker's side accept the settlement? Who gives a rat's derriere what the Judge thinks if the tech worker's side is okay with the settlement.
Click to expand...

Then this is a wonderful educational opportunity for you. In certain types of legal cases, the judge gets to ensure that the settlement is fair for the workers. Attorneys (on both sides, sometimes) do not always have the workers' best interest in mind.
 
John.B

John.B

macrumors 601
Jan 15, 2008
4,193
705
Holocene Epoch
G4DP said:
Exctly. If both sides agree, the judge should have no say in the matter.
Click to expand...

"Both sides" didn't agree. The defendants agreed with the lawyers who were supposed to be representing the plaintiffs' interests, but settled for between $2000 and $8000 per employee in order to collect a cool $80 million for themselves.
 
QCassidy352

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Mar 20, 2003
12,028
6,036
Bay Area
Small White Car said:
Because the companies broke the law. This is not just a civil lawsuit.

It appears that the government is stepping back and letting the lawsuit act as the punishment, but should the workers just give up and say "never mind" then the government would have to step in and do something.

So based on that, yes, they do have an interest in how the 'punishment' ends up.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that analysis. This *is* just a civil lawsuit. Maybe the DOJ will decide to take its own action at some later point and maybe they won't. The resolution of this case really should have no impact on that (except to the degree it convinces DOJ that there either is or isn't a case to be made). But unless and until DOJ takes its own action, this is just a civil lawsuit, not governmental action and certainly not "punishment."

Count me among those who believe that the judge should not have rejected a negotiated settlement that both sides agreed upon. If it were truly "beyond reasonableness" then maybe, but I find it hard to credit her decision that this meets that standard just because it's marginally below a similar settlement in a similar case.
 
Small White Car

Small White Car

macrumors G4
Aug 29, 2006
10,966
1,463
Washington DC
QCassidy352 said:
Count me among those who believe that the judge should not have rejected a negotiated settlement that both sides agreed upon.
Click to expand...

Ok, so the alternative is, she lets this amount stand and then the government says "we think you need to pay $x more to be a proper punishment."

But then, of course, that money just goes to the government instead of the winners of the lawsuit.

How can you justify that as a better outcome?
 
L

Larry-K

macrumors 68000
Jun 28, 2011
1,888
2,340
NT1440 said:
That said, this is in a country where Bank of America is about to pay $17 Billion for their illegal acts that helped tear down the economy, but resulted in hundreds of billions in profit at the time.
Click to expand...
Not their acts, B of A was just stupid enough to buy Countrywide.
 
Last edited:
nagromme

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,546
1,196
Agreed; that does fall below the range of reasonableness. It even falls below the level of noticeableness.

Tim Cook doesn't seem likely to even want to continue the practice, but Apple itself isn't all that matters. Other big companies are looking at this precedent. Telling them "go ahead, you might get fined pocket change" would not be helping the problem.
 
W

winston1236

macrumors 68000
Dec 13, 2010
1,902
319
NT1440 said:
Good, silicon valley as a whole stole billions in wages for employees through this scheme. The payout should be much higher.


That said, this is in a country where Bank of America is about to pay $17 Billion for their illegal acts that helped tear down the economy, but resulted in hundreds of billions in profit at the time.

We live in a pay to play corporatocracy, and good on this judge for holding out for more.
Click to expand...

Exactly, this era of corporatism is terrible for the average person.

----------
Larry-K said:
Not their acts, B of A was just stupid enough to buy Nationwide.
Click to expand...

Countrywide. Although the feds strongly encourage them to do so.
 
QCassidy352

QCassidy352

macrumors G5
Mar 20, 2003
12,028
6,036
Bay Area
Small White Car said:
Ok, so the alternative is, she lets this amount stand and then the government says "we think you need to pay $x more to be a proper punishment."

But then, of course, that money just goes to the government instead of the winners of the lawsuit.

How can you justify that as a better outcome?
Click to expand...

Regulatory actions simply cannot be combined with civil lawsuits. That's not the way the US justice system works. A payout to private parties in a civil suit cannot and does not take the place of a regulatory action by an agency (such as the SEC) or a criminal investigation by the DOJ.

There is no civil settlement so large that it precludes a governmental action, nor one so small that it forces a governmental action. They are different actions with different parties and different goals.

Whether the judge lets this stand or not really has no relevance to a government prosecutor, unless he or she just happens to say "I think the civil amount was enough so I decline to prosecute." Which is not how prosecutors generally do (or ever should) make their decisions.
 
A

Albanbrooke

macrumors newbie
Sep 30, 2010
3
0
The Judge's decision is actually really good.

G4DP said:
Exctly. If both sides agree, the judge should have no say in the matter. Unless she just wants more media attention, which sadly seems to be the case here.
Click to expand...

The judge has to have a say in the matter because this is a class action lawsuit.

Class action lawsuits are different because the plaintiffs (people who got screwed) aren't really involved in the suit themselves. There are a few "named plaintiffs" who might be, but it is likely only five people out of the tens of thousands who were harmed by this practice.

Class actions are often settled so that the attorneys make a TON of money; like tens of millions of dollars in fees. The proposed settlements actually include an agreement of how much money goes to the attorneys who brought the lawsuit against Apple and Google.

It is possible that:

1) The judge didn't feel that the class of harmed individuals (everybody who was underpaid as a result of the anti-poaching agreement) was being served by the terms of the agreement, or
2) That the attorneys' fees were way too high.

There are actual cases where the class gets pennies on the dollar while some of the attorneys walked away with $5k/hr for their work. Judges MUST be active in these types of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom