Plaintiffs in Silicon Valley anti-poaching case ask appeals court to reject Apple settlement proposa
Tech workers in a case accusing Apple, Google, Adobe and Intel of entering anti-poaching agreements asked a U.S. appeals court on Tuesday to reject the companies' settlement offer, which was previously denied by U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh.
Anti-poaching suit's Class Representative Michael Devine. | Source: The New York Times
In a court filing on Tuesday, a class of plaintiffs in the ongoing High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation requested that a federal appeals court deny a $324.5 million settlement proposal from the four tech giants, reports Reuters.
The motion harkens back to April, when the companies agreed to settle with the class over allegations of no-hire arrangements, but the offer was subsequently denied by Judge Koh, who said the amount was too low. Defendants fired back, saying in a September filing that Judge Koh "committed clear legal error" in deciding against the proposal.
Apple and its three co-defendants ultimately moved the issue up the ladder to an appellate court, which is in the process of hearing both sides of the story before remanding the case back to district court.
While plaintiffs previously fought against the $324.5 million payout, the group said in today's filing that the original deal warranted approval, but will "defer to [Judge Koh's] sound judgment about how best to oversee this litigation." In their appeal, defendants take issue with Judge Koh's authority in deciding against the settlement.
Anti-poaching suit's Class Representative Michael Devine. | Source: The New York TimesIn a court filing on Tuesday, a class of plaintiffs in the ongoing High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation requested that a federal appeals court deny a $324.5 million settlement proposal from the four tech giants, reports Reuters.
The motion harkens back to April, when the companies agreed to settle with the class over allegations of no-hire arrangements, but the offer was subsequently denied by Judge Koh, who said the amount was too low. Defendants fired back, saying in a September filing that Judge Koh "committed clear legal error" in deciding against the proposal.
Apple and its three co-defendants ultimately moved the issue up the ladder to an appellate court, which is in the process of hearing both sides of the story before remanding the case back to district court.
While plaintiffs previously fought against the $324.5 million payout, the group said in today's filing that the original deal warranted approval, but will "defer to [Judge Koh's] sound judgment about how best to oversee this litigation." In their appeal, defendants take issue with Judge Koh's authority in deciding against the settlement.
Comments
In the first paragraph it is said that Tuesday they asked the court to reject it then in the last paragraph it is stated they asked the court to approve it.
Which is it?
Dear plaintiffs, you could have gone looking on your own time.
The plaintiffs are really the attorneys. Employees are going to get jack squat. Maybe enough for a weekend away. The attorneys are banking on these suits.
These people need to go away and accept the fact these companies would have never hired them in the first place it has nothing to do with the so call deal.
I think there is 70,000 people in the claim group, yeah Apple and others have not hired that many people in the time period they claim this happen over. I bet that Apple gets a million resume a year and most of those think Apple should just hire them because they love Apple.
You should probably rely on another source for news. There are a lot of problems communicating stories accurately here.
Class-actions are for the benefit of the attorneys. Every time I get a class-action notice in the mail I tear it up.