Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 8, 2014, 02:44 PM   #1
MacRumors
macrumors bot
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Judge Rejects $324M Settlement Proposal in Apple, Google Class-Action Anti-Poaching Lawsuit




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.

Quote:
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.
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
MacRumors is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 02:46 PM   #2
o9ski
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: NYC
I disagree. It should be at least 381M
o9ski is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 02:49 PM   #3
aristotle
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canada
I propose cutting Lucy Koh's salary because I think it is too damn high.
__________________
15" Retina MBP, 2.7 Ghz Quad Core i7, 16 GB RAM, 768 GB SSD (10.9.2)
24" iMac, 2.8 GHz, 4GB RAM, 320 GB HD; 128 GB iPad Air LTE (iOS 7.0.4); 64 GB iPhone 5S (iOS 7.1.1)
aristotle is offline   6 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 02:51 PM   #4
Larry-K
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quick, somebody buy that judge off!
Larry-K is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 02:53 PM   #5
CrazyForApple
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Buffalo, NY
Send a message via AIM to CrazyForApple
thats kind of surprising actually
CrazyForApple is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 02:56 PM   #6
NT1440
macrumors G3
 
NT1440's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Hartford, CT
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.
NT1440 is offline   27 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 02:56 PM   #7
Lapidus
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2012
Am I the only one who red: "Apple, Google Glass"
Lapidus is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:04 PM   #8
The Barron
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
No - You didn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lapidus View Post
Am I the only one who red: "Apple, Google Glass"
Nope
The Barron is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:05 PM   #9
AngerDanger
macrumors 65816
 
AngerDanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: doing the Dada Polka
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!
AngerDanger is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:16 PM   #10
Mousse
macrumors 65816
 
Mousse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Mended Drum, Ankh-Morpork
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.
__________________
D'oh! (_8(|)
Mousse is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:21 PM   #11
John.B
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
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.
__________________
Apple develops an improved programming language. Google copied Java. Everything you need to know, right there.
MG632LL/A ME344LL/A FB463LL/A MD388LL/A MD199LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A
John.B is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:22 PM   #12
G4DP
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mousse View Post
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.
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.
__________________
Apple wouldn't know a cartographer if they stabbed them with a pair of compass' in the backside!
G4DP is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:22 PM   #13
Small White Car
macrumors G4
 
Small White Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mousse View Post
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.
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.
Small White Car is offline   10 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:29 PM   #14
theheadguy
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: california
Send a message via AIM to theheadguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by G4DP View Post
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mousse View Post
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.
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.
__________________
the best feature of this forum is the ability to turn off the viewing of signatures
theheadguy is offline   13 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:29 PM   #15
John.B
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Flyover Country
Quote:
Originally Posted by G4DP View Post
Exctly. If both sides agree, the judge should have no say in the matter.
"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.
__________________
Apple develops an improved programming language. Google copied Java. Everything you need to know, right there.
MG632LL/A ME344LL/A FB463LL/A MD388LL/A MD199LL/A MC572LL/A FC060LL/A MD481LL/A
John.B is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:32 PM   #16
QCassidy352
macrumors G3
 
QCassidy352's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Small White Car View Post
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.
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.
__________________
"If Jesus Himself came back to earth and turned water to wine, half of MacRumors would say 'meh, this is red. I wanted white.'"
QCassidy352 is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:39 PM   #17
Small White Car
macrumors G4
 
Small White Car's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Washington DC
Quote:
Originally Posted by QCassidy352 View Post
Count me among those who believe that the judge should not have rejected a negotiated settlement that both sides agreed upon.
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?
Small White Car is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:55 PM   #18
Larry-K
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
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.
Not their acts, B of A was just stupid enough to buy Countrywide.

Last edited by Larry-K; Aug 10, 2014 at 03:09 AM. Reason: Wrong "Wide"
Larry-K is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 03:59 PM   #19
forthelove
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
So is "reasonableness" a technical term or.....
forthelove is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 04:02 PM   #20
TouchMint.com
macrumors 65816
 
TouchMint.com's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Phoenix
Kind of weird how they can put a number on this haha.
__________________
TouchMint.com iOS App Site
Adventure To Fate iOS RPG Game Site
Indie iOS Game: Adventure To Fate : A Quest To The Core JRPG

TouchMint.com is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 04:02 PM   #21
nagromme
macrumors G5
 
nagromme's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
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.
nagromme is offline   7 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 04:04 PM   #22
winston1236
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: ><
Quote:
Originally Posted by NT1440 View Post
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.
Exactly, this era of corporatism is terrible for the average person.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry-K View Post
Not their acts, B of A was just stupid enough to buy Nationwide.
Countrywide. Although the feds strongly encourage them to do so.
__________________
Don't quote me on that.
winston1236 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 04:17 PM   #23
QCassidy352
macrumors G3
 
QCassidy352's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Francisco
Quote:
Originally Posted by Small White Car View Post
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?
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.
__________________
"If Jesus Himself came back to earth and turned water to wine, half of MacRumors would say 'meh, this is red. I wanted white.'"
QCassidy352 is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 04:26 PM   #24
Albanbrooke
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
The Judge's decision is actually really good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G4DP View Post
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.
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.
Albanbrooke is offline   8 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2014, 04:27 PM   #25
IGregory
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
$384 Million is chump change to these companies.
__________________
The happy owner of a Mid-2012 Macbook Pro w/Retina Display, iPad Air and iPhone 5s .
IGregory is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:27 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC