Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP

Introduction

On May 4, 2011, a former software engineer at Lucasfilm and current CEO of inEarth filed a class action lawsuit charging Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar with violations of antitrust laws by conspiring to fix the pay of their employees and entering into "No Solicitation" agreements with each other.

On June 28, 2011, similar class action complaints were filed against the same defendants by former Adobe employees. On June 30, 2011, a new class action complaint raising the same allegations was filed by a former Intel employee.

In the high technology sector, there is a strong demand for employees with advanced or specialized skills. One of the principal means by which high tech companies recruit these types of employees is to solicit them directly from other companies in a process referred to as "cold calling."

"Competition in the labor market results in better salaries, enhanced career opportunities for employees, and better products for consumers," stated Lieff Cabraser attorney Joseph R. Saveri. "We estimate that because of reduced competition for their services, compensation for skilled employees at Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, and Pixar was reduced by 10 to 15 percent. These companies owe their tremendous successes to the sacrifices and hard work of their employees, and must take responsibility for their misconduct."

Factual Allegations

The complaints seek restitution for lost compensation and treble damages for the anti-competitive employment practices of Adobe Systems Inc., Apple Inc., Google Inc., Intel Corporation, Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd., and Pixar. The plaintiff seeks to represent a nationwide class of all employees who were harmed by defendants' unlawful agreements.

The complaints allege the conspiracy among defendants consisted of (1) agreements not to actively recruit each other's employees; (2) agreements to provide notification when making an offer to another's employee (without the knowledge or consent of that employee); and (3) agreements to cap pay packages offered to prospective employees at the initial offer.

Starting in 2005 with Lucasfilm and Pixar, and continuing until at least 2009 with all defendants, the companies entered into "No Solicitation" agreements with knowledge of the overall conspiracy and with the intent to reduce employee compensation. As additional companies joined the conspiracy, competition among participating companies for skilled labor decreased. Compensation of defendants' employees was less than what would have prevailed in a properly functioning labor market where employers compete for workers.

The complaints follow an investigation in 2011 by the U.S. Department of Justice into similar misconduct by defendants. After that investigation was made public, defendants agreed to end the anticompetitive agreements. However, no compensation was provided to employees of defendants. The class action complaints seek lost pay for the employees who were targeted by defendants' alleged conspiracy.

Case Status

On Friday, October 28, 2011, Judge Koh denied Defendants' motion to stay discovery in part. Judge Koh ordered Defendants to produce by November 30, 2011 certain documents relating to the U.S. Department of Justice investigation of these practices, including the emails and other documents defendants turned over.

Judge Koh also set a litigation schedule, culminating in a jury trial date set for June 10, 2013.

On April 18, 2012, Judge Koh allowed all antitrust claims in the case to go forward. In large part, the Court denied defendants' joint motion to dismiss the case.

Information for Affected Employees

Current and former employees of Adobe, Apple, Google, Intel, Intuit, Lucasfilm, Pixar, and other high-tech companies who wish to learn more about this lawsuit or to report their experiences may contact us online. Or they many contact Lieff Cabraser attorney Dean Harvey at (415) 956-1000 or dharvey@lchb.com.

There is no charge or obligation for our review of your claim. All information will be kept strictly confidential as provided under law.