Judge approves $415M settlement in Silicon Valley anti-poaching lawsuit
A federal court judge has green-lit a joint $415 million settlement in an anti-poaching lawsuit involving Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe, officially bringing the years-long case to a close.
Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt during the iPhone's introduction at MacWorld in 2007
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh handed down final approval of the settlement late Wednesday night, nearly eight months after Apple and its codefendants agreed to the sum in January, reports Reuters.
The suit was first filed in 2011 when workers from Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe accused their employers of instituting so-called "no poach" rules, thereby artificially suppressing salaries by stifling cross-company mobility. Executives at each company were taken to task over the matter, but the case attained its high-profile status when claims were made against late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. According to plaintiffs, Jobs instigated a variety of anti-poaching guidelines in a bid to retain talent, including the creation of "do not call" lists.
Defendants agreed to an initial settlement reportedly worth $324.5 million last year, but class representative Michael Devine, a former Adobe systems engineer, objected to the offer, calling the amount was "grossly inadequate." Judge Koh subsequently rejected the offer citing a prior $20 million settlement reached in the same case by Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm in 2013.
Each of the 64,466 class members will receive a fraction of the award based on their total base salary during the alleged conspiracy period between 2005 and 2009. In a separate but related ruling Judge Koh denied attorneys' request for $81 million in fees, instead granting half that amount.
Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt during the iPhone's introduction at MacWorld in 2007
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh handed down final approval of the settlement late Wednesday night, nearly eight months after Apple and its codefendants agreed to the sum in January, reports Reuters.
The suit was first filed in 2011 when workers from Apple, Google, Intel and Adobe accused their employers of instituting so-called "no poach" rules, thereby artificially suppressing salaries by stifling cross-company mobility. Executives at each company were taken to task over the matter, but the case attained its high-profile status when claims were made against late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs. According to plaintiffs, Jobs instigated a variety of anti-poaching guidelines in a bid to retain talent, including the creation of "do not call" lists.
Defendants agreed to an initial settlement reportedly worth $324.5 million last year, but class representative Michael Devine, a former Adobe systems engineer, objected to the offer, calling the amount was "grossly inadequate." Judge Koh subsequently rejected the offer citing a prior $20 million settlement reached in the same case by Intuit, Pixar and Lucasfilm in 2013.
Each of the 64,466 class members will receive a fraction of the award based on their total base salary during the alleged conspiracy period between 2005 and 2009. In a separate but related ruling Judge Koh denied attorneys' request for $81 million in fees, instead granting half that amount.
Comments
Who gets the $400mil??
Assuming $415 million minus $40 million in attorney fees, 64466 members will receive an average of $5817 each, before taxes and other deductions.
I don't think the math works like that. In other words, an employee who worked for 1 day during the period isn't entitled to the same as those who were employees the entire period. I'm pretty sure the payouts will be weighted according to how long you were an employee of these companies during the timeframe in question.
I don't think the math works like that. In other words, an employee who worked for 1 day during the period isn't entitled to the same as those who were employees the entire period. I'm pretty sure the payouts will be weighted according to how long you were an employee of these companies during the timeframe in question.
Yes the math works out that way. Employees with that earned more will obtain a larger share than those with low pay (includes ones that were with the company for a very short period). That's why I wrote "an average of."
Yes the math works out that way. Employees with that earned more will obtain a larger share than those with low pay (includes ones that were with the company for a very short period). That's why I wrote "an average of."
Oh I see. I found the formula online. It's based on the total amount an employee earned based on their base pay during the entire period in question, so the length of employment isn't part of the equation.