Apple's Beats brand in April unveiled the Powerbeats Pro, a redesigned wire-free version of its popular fitness-oriented Powerbeats earbuds.
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.
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.
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.
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. [...]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.
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.
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.
[ 64 comments ]
Top Rated Comments
(View all)
67 months ago
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.
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.
67 months ago
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.
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.
67 months ago
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.
67 months ago
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.
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.
67 months ago
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.
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.
67 months ago
Hey, it's that lady who did that thing I didn't like! I hate her so much. She's stupid. :mad:
67 months ago
It's important to note that at least one of the named plaintiffs objected to the settlement, and sent his objections to the judge. The entire letter (http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1158546-lettertocourt.html) is worth reading, but among the money quotes is this gem:
"The tentative settlement, if it stands, amounts to big profits for Plaintiffs' counsel, insulation from real liability for the Defendants, and locks in a significant net loss for the Class. Therefore, on behalf of the Class, I respectfully ask you reject this settlement so that we may have our day in court and have a real shot at justice."
Folks here complaining that the judge is interfering with an agreement between the named plaintiffs and defendants are way off base - the judge is rejecting a deal cut between the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendants that doesn't even have the agreement of the handful of named plaintiffs on the case, much less represent the interest of the class.
The proposed settlement is low by at least a factor of 10.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/in_house/2014/05/plaintiff-objects-to-silicon-valley-anti-poaching-settlement.html
"The tentative settlement, if it stands, amounts to big profits for Plaintiffs' counsel, insulation from real liability for the Defendants, and locks in a significant net loss for the Class. Therefore, on behalf of the Class, I respectfully ask you reject this settlement so that we may have our day in court and have a real shot at justice."
Folks here complaining that the judge is interfering with an agreement between the named plaintiffs and defendants are way off base - the judge is rejecting a deal cut between the plaintiffs' counsel and the defendants that doesn't even have the agreement of the handful of named plaintiffs on the case, much less represent the interest of the class.
The proposed settlement is low by at least a factor of 10.
http://blogs.findlaw.com/in_house/2014/05/plaintiff-objects-to-silicon-valley-anti-poaching-settlement.html
[ Read All Comments ]
Facebook today announced a new set of Portal video chat devices, including one that is aimed to compete in the streaming TV market. This device is called the Portal TV, and it connects to a TV set...
Apple this week published environmental reports for the new iPhone 11, iPhone 11 Pro, and iPhone 11 Pro Max, revealing that the Taptic Engine in all three devices is made of 100 percent recycled rare...
Amazon this week is discounting numerous Apple notebooks and tablets, offering new all-time-low prices in each instance. You can save as much as $400 in these sales, which relate to the 2019...
NBCUniversal today revealed that the name of its upcoming streaming television service is "Peacock," a reference to the company's logo. The service is still set to launch in April 2020,...
Amazon today introduced a new tier of Amazon Music, called Amazon Music HD, which offers lossless versions of audio files for streaming or downloading. This tier will cost $14.99/month, or...
Signify today announced a new device for its Philip Hue line of lights, debuting the Hue Play HDMI Sync Box, designed to allow Hue users to sync their lights to their home entertainment systems.
...
Apple on Tuesday argued that the European Union's order for it to pay 13 billion euros ($14.3 billion) in back taxes to Ireland "defies reality and common sense," as it kicked off its...
Apple is set to invest $1 billion in India as it gets ready to export its "Made in India" iPhones, according to a new report out today.
Times of India says Foxconn is the main...
