Apple, Google appeal Judge Koh's rejection of settlement in no-poach lawsuit
In a court filing late Thursday, Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel appealed Judge Lucy Koh's rejection of a proposed $324.5 million settlement relating to a class action lawsuit leveled by Silicon Valley employees, calling the jurist's decision "rigid and formulaic."
Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt during the iPhone's introduction at MacWorld in 2007.
Defendants in the ongoing Silicon Valley anti-poaching case, including Apple, requested the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to step in regarding California District Court Judge Koh's recent decision to refuse a settlement offer worth $324.5 million, reports Reuters.
The filing was harsh in its assessment of Judge Koh, saying she "committed clear legal error" and "impermissibly substituted the court's assessment of the value of the case for that of the parties who have been litigating the case for more than three years."
In August, the jurist denied a proposed settlement on the grounds that the amount was too low. At the time, Judge Koh said defendants should "pay their fair share" for suppressing wages through alleged non-compete hiring clauses, supposedly agreed upon through unofficial email correspondence between high-ranking executives like Apple cofounder Steve Jobs.
At least part of the decision to deny was based on a comparison with a similar settlement involving Disney and Intuit, which saw employees awarded damages proportionally higher than would be paid out by the $324.5 million proposal.
Despite the comparatively lower damages amount, attorneys representing the Silicon Valley class pushed Judge Koh to agree to the terms, noting employees may not get anything if and when the trial moves to appeal.
As such, Thursday's filing said Judge Koh "dismissed the parties' analysis of the trial risks, suggesting that, unless the settlement was larger, the court had -- in its own words -- 'wasted years on this case.'"
Earlier this week, Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel reopened settlement talks as part of renewed mediation proceedings. Parties are scheduled to meet with Judge Koh at a Sept. 10 hearing.
Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt during the iPhone's introduction at MacWorld in 2007.Defendants in the ongoing Silicon Valley anti-poaching case, including Apple, requested the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to step in regarding California District Court Judge Koh's recent decision to refuse a settlement offer worth $324.5 million, reports Reuters.
The filing was harsh in its assessment of Judge Koh, saying she "committed clear legal error" and "impermissibly substituted the court's assessment of the value of the case for that of the parties who have been litigating the case for more than three years."
In August, the jurist denied a proposed settlement on the grounds that the amount was too low. At the time, Judge Koh said defendants should "pay their fair share" for suppressing wages through alleged non-compete hiring clauses, supposedly agreed upon through unofficial email correspondence between high-ranking executives like Apple cofounder Steve Jobs.
At least part of the decision to deny was based on a comparison with a similar settlement involving Disney and Intuit, which saw employees awarded damages proportionally higher than would be paid out by the $324.5 million proposal.
Despite the comparatively lower damages amount, attorneys representing the Silicon Valley class pushed Judge Koh to agree to the terms, noting employees may not get anything if and when the trial moves to appeal.
As such, Thursday's filing said Judge Koh "dismissed the parties' analysis of the trial risks, suggesting that, unless the settlement was larger, the court had -- in its own words -- 'wasted years on this case.'"
Earlier this week, Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel reopened settlement talks as part of renewed mediation proceedings. Parties are scheduled to meet with Judge Koh at a Sept. 10 hearing.
Comments
Isn't this what Apple, Google, Adobe, et al. were telling her before the proposed settlement?
That is amazing. The judge deciding that the amount of the settlement should somehow reflect her inflated sense of importance. If the settlement isn't record breaking then why would her name become anything more than a footnote?
FunFact: Judge Judy personally earning close to $50M/year, nearly double any other TV personality. Not bad work for a 70+ former family court judge from New York.
"Oh no, we got Ping again!" (10 points to anyone who gets the reference) lol- oh, and it has Nothing to do with race, btw...
Learn how to read. We’re not “okay” with them “getting away” with anything. If Apple has broken the law, they’re to be punished.
What we’re actually not okay with is a travesty of justice incurred by bias.
No kidding!
Somebody needs to put that judge in their place!
What a disgrace!
Yes, I understand she's actually a billionaire.
Neither you, nor Koh can definitively prove there was ANY actual harm.
Neither you, nor Koh can definitively prove there was ANY actual harm.
Koh isn't responsible for proving harm. Neither am I. What I do know, however, is what Apple and company did was wrong, and the amount they are offering is far less than what the workers requested.
Learn how to read. We’re not “okay” with them “getting away” with anything. If Apple has broken the law, they’re to be punished.
What we’re actually not okay with is a travesty of justice incurred by bias.
Yes, Apple and their fellow defendants are biased. Good to see you agree.
Uh...
[doesnt even deserve a facepalm]
If apple broke the law, then spank them, as hard as you would spank any other company. They can afford it. Anti-poaching is monopolistic and frankly, 325 mil doesn't seem like enough for all the people who would have been affected by their manufactured inability to seek a better life for themselves in the free market.
They always could "seek a better life for themselves in the free market", the issue was companies actively approaching other companies employees and targeting them with job offers which weren't available to anyone else.