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

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    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.

    [​IMG]
    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
     
  2. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    NYC
    #2
    I disagree. It should be at least 381M
     
  3. macrumors 68000

    aristotle

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #3
    I propose cutting Lucy Koh's salary because I think it is too damn high.
     
  4. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #4
    Quick, somebody buy that judge off!
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    CrazyForApple

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2012
    Location:
    Buffalo, NY
    #5
    thats kind of surprising actually
     
  6. macrumors G3

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #6
    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.
     
  7. macrumors regular

    Lapidus

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    #7
    Am I the only one who red: "Apple, Google Glass"
     
  8. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    #8
    No - You didn't.

    Nope :D
     
  9. macrumors 68000

    AngerDanger

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2008
    Location:
    Male
    #9
    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
     
  10. macrumors 65816

    Mousse

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2008
    Location:
    Flea Bottom, King's Landing
    #10
    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.
     
  11. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #11
    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.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    #12
    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.
     
  13. macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #13
    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.
     
  14. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2005
    Location:
    california
    #14
    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.
     
  15. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #15
    "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.
     
  16. macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #16
    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.
     
  17. macrumors G4

    Small White Car

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Location:
    Washington DC
    #17
    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?
     
  18. Larry-K, Aug 8, 2014
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2014

    macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    #18
    Not their acts, B of A was just stupid enough to buy Countrywide.
     
  19. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2013
    #19
    So is "reasonableness":confused: a technical term or.....
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    TouchMint.com

    Joined:
    May 25, 2012
    Location:
    Phoenix
    #20
    Kind of weird how they can put a number on this haha.
     
  21. macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #21
    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.
     
  22. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2010
    Location:
    ><
    #22
    Exactly, this era of corporatism is terrible for the average person.

    ----------

    Countrywide. Although the feds strongly encourage them to do so.
     
  23. macrumors G3

    QCassidy352

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2003
    Location:
    San Francisco
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2010
    #24
    The Judge's decision is actually really good.

    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.
     
  25. macrumors 6502a

    IGregory

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    #25
    $384 Million is chump change to these companies.
     

Share This Page