Lawsuit Filed Against Apple and Other Tech Companies Over Anti-Poaching Agreements
Law firm Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein today announced the filing of a class-action lawsuit against Apple and other tech companies over "no solicitation" agreements that prevented the companies from attempting to hire away each others' employees. The lawsuit, filed by former Lucasfilm engineer Siddharth Hariharan, contends that the anti-poaching agreements limited career opportunities for and instituted artificial salary caps on employees at the companies involved.
"My colleagues at Lucasfilm and I applied our skills, knowledge, and creativity to make the company an industry leader," stated Mr. Hariharan. "It's disappointing that, while we were working hard to make terrific products that resulted in enormous profits for Lucasfilm, senior executives of the company cut deals with other premiere high tech companies to eliminate competition and cap pay for skilled employees."
"Competition in the labor market results in better salaries, enhanced career opportunities for employees, and better products for consumers," stated [attorney Joseph] Saveri. "We estimate that because of reduced competition for their services, compensation for skilled employees at Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar was reduced by 10 to 15 percent. These companies owe their tremendous successes to the sacrifices and hard work of their employees, and must take responsibility for their misconduct."
Specific claims of Apple's involvement in such anti-poaching agreements surfaced in August 2009 when a deal with Google was revealed. The U.S. Department of Justice finalized a settlement in September 2010 that barred Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, and Pixar from participating in such arrangements.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
Just because they agree not to poach (they won't headhunt a specific person), they can advertise freely what ever salary for a position, who ever wants can apply, and resign from their current job.
The details aren't clear, but if they ignore job applications from anyone currently working in one of the other companies in the agreement, that would be a major disadvantage for those employees.
Is there something in this, or is it just a case of a resentful ex-employee?
Just because they agree not to poach (they won't headhunt a specific person), they can advertise freely what ever salary for a position, who ever wants can apply, and resign from their current job.
Agreeing not to go after each other's top talent is a crime known as collusion, and more broadly it is the beginning stages of a trust. The competitive element of the market is completely destroyed if demand is being artificially suppressed.
There def is some merit to this argument but there could be a no compete claus. If that's the case then this lawsuit seems very valid. Probably wont amount to much however
Non-compete clauses are very tightly restricted in California. They only allow for trade secret protection and sensitive document protection. Thus, a former Pixar employee could not reveal to Lucasfilms what their next big project is, but he would be perfectly free to leave Pixar for Lucasfilms.
The DOJ already ruled this and the parties involved settled... At least these companies have that for their defense.
I agree that such agreement or practice goes against employees but how you can prove that you got affected and lost money or better employment???
well.. time will tell..:(
The Federal government settled a criminal prosecution. This is a civil lawsuit on the part of the injured employees.
I haven't taken a look at the full lawsuit yet, but I suspect that the plaintiffs are trying to make use of the Sherman Anti-Trust which allows for triple damages by default.
Let's say I want to work for Apple - well, maybe they won't contact me, or they'll send my CV that I send to them to the shredder without reading it through. All because of where I work now.
Bluntly speaking - that's crap.
What junk! People will sue over anything these days.
Personally, I think the anti-poaching is good. If someone wants to look for a job with another... fine, but for each to be trying to steal the others best talent is defocusing and a waste.
If thats as far as their agreement goes fine, but it seems that agreements like these might make it a lot harder for workers to look outside their company without receiving unwanted attention from the company they are already employed by.
It sounds iffy legal behavior and I'm not opposed to it being shot down.
Is there something in this, or is it just a case of a resentful ex-employee?
Just because they agree not to poach (they won't headhunt a specific person), they can advertise freely what ever salary for a position, who ever wants can apply, and resign from their current job.
There def is some merit to this argument but there could be a no compete claus. If that's the case then this lawsuit seems very valid. Probably wont amount to much however
On the other hand, if this was a labor union working to prevent competition from non-union workers, the government would be tripping over itself to lend aid.
What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.
Meh. I guess the gander in your analogy is a guy making a six or seven figure salary. While the goose is a $12/hour laborer.
Somehow, I'm not sure those people have equivalent issues.
Federal Crim Settlement with DOJ ≠ Civil Immunity
That completely explains why they can't click on the link ;)
[ Read All Comments ]
Even as Apple is preparing to open its first Dutch retail store in Amsterdam on March 3, the company is moving closer to expanding its international reach even further as it has updated its Swedish...
Following reports yesterday that Apple would open its first Dutch retail store in Amsterdam on March 3, the company has confirmed that date today with emails to customers and a new dedicated store...
The Charlotte Observer reports that a total of 25 iPhones valued at over $16,000 have been reported stolen from Apple's Northlake Mall retail store in Charlotte, North Carolina. While...
German site iFun.de reports [Google translation] that has it has received information from a source "to be taken seriously" claiming that the iPad 3 will debut there on Friday, March 23.
...
AFP reports that Proview Technology has expressed a willingness to work toward a settlement with Apple in the "iPad" trademark dispute in China, even as the company continues to press forward...
