A lawsuit alleging that several of the country’s most powerful high-tech companies had a secret, non-compete deal recently received class-action certification. More than 60,000 employees of Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corp. are members of a class that allege that the pact not to recruit or hire each other’s employees resulted in decreased competition and lower salaries.
As we previously discussed on this Business Law Blog, many of the same Silicon Valley companies entered into a settlement with the Department of Justice in 2010 over similar allegations. Although they did not admit wrongdoing, they agreed to end the practice of entering agreements to refrain from, or pressure others to refrain from, soliciting, recruiting, or otherwise competing for another firm’s employees.
More recently, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay a combined $20 million to settle the civil antitrust claims against their companies. However, the remaining defendants employ over 90 percent of the class members.
The class certification process was not an easy process for the plaintiffs, and reflects the tough new standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Walmart v. Dukes, Comcast v. Behrend, and Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California previously denied certification, but allowed the plaintiffs to provide additional evidence regarding the commonality of the harm suffered by the class.
After presenting new deposition testimony and limiting the class to only technical workers, the Judge changed her mind, concluding, “Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests not only that the anti-solicitation agreements eliminated a key tool of recruitment, cold calling, but also that the impact of this elimination affected the entire technical class.”
While liability must still be proved by plaintiffs, even the costs of defending these claims highlight that anti-poaching agreements have the potential to result in very costly liability. It must be understood that there are strong public policies on both federal and state levels against the restraint of trade. California, for example, outlaws non-compete agreements in employment agreements that do not involve the sale of a business. Non-solicitation agreements generally do not cause such problems provided they are not part of a conspiracy among employers as opposed to agreements entered into directly between employers and their employees.
The latest decision further suggests that the Supreme Court has not put class action suits totally out of reach. This case also demonstrates that obtaining a certification still remains a major hurdle for plaintiffs’ lawyers, however.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Gary Young, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Lawsuit Over Tech Anti-Poaching Pact Receives Class Action Certification
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
A lawsuit alleging that several of the country’s most powerful high-tech companies had a secret, non-compete deal recently received class-action certification. More than 60,000 employees of Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Intel Corp. are members of a class that allege that the pact not to recruit or hire each other’s employees resulted in decreased competition and lower salaries.
As we previously discussed on this Business Law Blog, many of the same Silicon Valley companies entered into a settlement with the Department of Justice in 2010 over similar allegations. Although they did not admit wrongdoing, they agreed to end the practice of entering agreements to refrain from, or pressure others to refrain from, soliciting, recruiting, or otherwise competing for another firm’s employees.
More recently, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay a combined $20 million to settle the civil antitrust claims against their companies. However, the remaining defendants employ over 90 percent of the class members.
The class certification process was not an easy process for the plaintiffs, and reflects the tough new standards established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Walmart v. Dukes, Comcast v. Behrend, and Amgen v. Connecticut Retirement Plans. U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California previously denied certification, but allowed the plaintiffs to provide additional evidence regarding the commonality of the harm suffered by the class.
After presenting new deposition testimony and limiting the class to only technical workers, the Judge changed her mind, concluding, “Plaintiffs’ evidence suggests not only that the anti-solicitation agreements eliminated a key tool of recruitment, cold calling, but also that the impact of this elimination affected the entire technical class.”
While liability must still be proved by plaintiffs, even the costs of defending these claims highlight that anti-poaching agreements have the potential to result in very costly liability. It must be understood that there are strong public policies on both federal and state levels against the restraint of trade. California, for example, outlaws non-compete agreements in employment agreements that do not involve the sale of a business. Non-solicitation agreements generally do not cause such problems provided they are not part of a conspiracy among employers as opposed to agreements entered into directly between employers and their employees.
The latest decision further suggests that the Supreme Court has not put class action suits totally out of reach. This case also demonstrates that obtaining a certification still remains a major hurdle for plaintiffs’ lawyers, however.
If you have any questions about this case or would like to discuss the legal issues involved, please contact me, Gary Young, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
