Google, Apple, Intel, Adobe avoid anti-poaching trial
Local staff claimed they have missed pay rises due to alleged agreement between industry giants
Industry giants Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe have settled a US anti-poaching case brought by staff out of court for $325m (£192.6m).
In a story broken by the Silicon Valley Business Journal (SVBJ), the class-action lawsuit was due to begin in May, brought by local workers who argue that they have missed out on "billions of dollars" in potential wages because Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe had agreed, it is alleged, not to poach workers from each other in a move to keep salaries down.
These four companies are the largest tech firms in Silicon Valley and thus wield considerable influence, noted SVBJ journalist Jon Xavier.
"According to the plaintiffs' law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann and Bernstein, Google, Apple, Intel and Adobe Systems have agreed to settle with the roughly 60,000 workers who brought the suit," he wrote.
According to the Reuters newswire, which quoted "sources familiar with the deal", the settlement is for a cool $325m (£192.6m).
SVBJ's Xavier said the workers had wanted about $90,000 each – which would have been more like $6.75bn after legal fees of about 20 per cent. The Reuters report put the initial figure to be requested in court according to filings at $3bn – potentially tripling to $9bn under anti-trust law.
Full documentation on the settlement is expected to be filed in court before US District Judge Lucy Koh next month, with principal terms to be disclosed by 27 May.
"The case involves [alleged] evidence of agreements between some of the area's top firms dating from 2005, apparently masterminded by former Apple CEO Steve Jobs, to not make offers for each other's employees," Xavier wrote.
The class-action suit was filed in 2011, and according to Reuters is "based largely" on emails between Jobs, former Google boss Eric Schmidt, and other rival executives, focusing on technical roles.
"The companies had acknowledged entering into some no-hire agreements but disputed the allegation that they had conspired to drive down wages. Moreover, they argued that the employees should not be allowed to sue as a group," according to Reuters.