Plaintiffs in Silicon Valley anti-poaching case ask appeals court to reject Apple settlement proposa

Posted:
in General Discussion edited October 2014
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.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 7
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    Could it be because Apple is cash rich?
  • Reply 2 of 7
    icoco3icoco3 Posts: 1,437member
    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.

    ...

    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.

    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?
  • Reply 3 of 7
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,544member
    Dear plaintiffs, you could have gone looking on your own time.
  • Reply 4 of 7
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post



    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.

  • Reply 5 of 7
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,147member

    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. 

  • Reply 6 of 7
    icoco3 wrote: »
    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?

    You should probably rely on another source for news. There are a lot of problems communicating stories accurately here.
  • Reply 7 of 7
    maestro64 wrote: »
    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. 

    Class-actions are for the benefit of the attorneys. Every time I get a class-action notice in the mail I tear it up.
Sign In or Register to comment.