

Plaintiff in tech hiring suit asks judge to reject settlement - 001sky
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/12/uk-apple-google-settlement-idUKKBN0DS0CN20140512

======
pmorici
The money quote from the plaintiff...

""As an analogy," Devine wrote, "if a shoplifter is caught on video stealing a
$400 iPad from the Apple Store, would a fair and just resolution be for the
shoplifter to pay Apple $40, keep the iPad, and walk away with no record or
admission of wrongdoing? Of course not.""

~~~
freehunter
That does happen though. Apple could choose to not press charges and let him
walk away free.

~~~
pmorici
The question isn't whether it happens but whether it would be considered a
just outcome. He is drawing a comparison between something that is easily
recognized as "getting off easy" to something that is harder to conceptualize
because of the absolute size of the amounts involved.

~~~
freehunter
It is a just outcome if the affected party feels satisfied. Just because there
wasn't punishment (or wasn't "enough" punishment in someone's eyes) doesn't
mean the outcome wasn't just. Justice doesn't mean punishment.

~~~
jdbernard
Obviously the affected party in this case does not feel satisfied. That's why
he wrote the letter to the judge.

------
mephi5t0
324 mln divided by 64K people is about 5K. So, you didn't hire me because of
your little shitty agreement, I didn't get a 30-40K or more salary a year (not
to mention possibly better benefits) and you give away 5 grand to sing "don't
worry be happy?" Great math. When someone downloads a song it gets smacked
with 100K bill and a jail time. But when you don't get a job, 5K sounds just
about right.

~~~
abalone
And that's before the lawyers take their cut ($75 million). That slices it
down to <$4K average.

------
jmct
I'm glad that Michael Devine has the courage to turn down the settlement. I
think it helps that there seems to be clear evidence of wrongdoing.

Also, maybe I am misunderstanding something, but does the plaintiff have to
_ask_ for the settlement to be rejected?

I thought that for a settlement to go through, all parties have to agree,
otherwise it goes to court.

~~~
bradleyjg
Class action lawsuits are either opt-out (23b3) or in some cases (23b1-2)
mandatory with no choice but to be bound. This is especially problematic
because the actor in the driver's seat -- the lawyers that bring the suits --
have very different incentives from thier nominal clients. In fact, thier
incentives are more closely aligned with the defendant. The defendant wants a
quick resolution and global peace, the lawyers want a quick resolution and a
large fee, so the settlements tend to offer global peace for a large fee. The
class gets worthless injunctive relief, or a coupon, or a charity of the
lawyers' choice gets some money, or maybe class members get $10 each but only
if they fill out a bunch of paperwork. Class actions rarely ever go to trial.
In theory the judge is supposed to protect absent class members but usually
they act as a rubber stamp.

Class actions do not comport with due process and should be abolished. If
lawyers want to bring mass tort suits let them sign up clients.

~~~
spenrose
Wow, does your last sentence turn 180 from the (otherwise excellent) analysis.
If class actions don't help plaintiffs enough, shouldn't we be looking for a
_stronger_ solution?

~~~
geebee
I'm trying to understand these issues better, but my initial inclination would
be to treat class actions similar to antitrust lawsuits. Individuals can bring
anti-trust lawsuits for specific damages, but my impression is that broad
antitrust lawsuits are generally initiated by federal/state attorneys general.

This makes sense when the plaintiffs are, for example, "everyone who buys
gas". But in this particular "no hire" case, I do think that the the harm done
here is pretty extensive - it may well extend to people who never applied for
positions at these companies. Obviously, you were harmed if you were
specifically prevented from switching jobs, and you were harmed if you were
were passive but specifically never contact about a new position. But what if
you might have had a chance to move up in a company if someone else had moved
on to a new job at a different company? What if your own staff was
aggressively targeted by a recruiter who would otherwise have tried to hire
from google or apple, because your engineers were fair game and there's
weren't as part of a secret collusive (and absolutely illegal) agreement? What
if you applied for a job at these places and might have had a crack at if if
there had been more turnover?

Collusion is very, very damaging to a free economy. This is broad and far
reaching. I think this might be better handled by an atty general who doesn't
stand to profit personally from the outcome.

~~~
bradleyjg
I tend to agree with you (see my sister comment about regulators regulating)
but it's worth noting that in this particular case the Justice Department did
pursue the case but agreed to the most ridiculous settlement terms possible
(the companies in question promised to follow the law for five years --
something they were already obligated to do.)

Edit: DOJ Press release
[http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html](http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html)

~~~
geebee
I wasn't aware of that, though now that you mention it, I do have a vague
memory about this. Would you post a link?

------
Bluestrike2
Class actions aren't about justice for individual plaintiffs. Hell, lawsuits
in general aren't about getting justice for plaintiffs. In wrongful death
cases, the courts can't wave their hands and bring the dead back to life.
Money is used as an imperfect substitute. X died, and amount Y is what their
life would have been worth. Not because people want to boil away everything
that made that life what it was into a dollar amount, but because there's
really no other option. That's not the same as an idealized sense of "justice"
that people talk about when they state their intentions to "have their day in
court."

Attorneys don't push for settlements because they're greedy or unethical; they
try to settle because it's almost always better than litigating. Litigation is
risky, and even strong claims can lose at trial. Neither side wants to roll
the dice.

Class actions are almost exclusively about leveraging the individual class
members into a means of stopping a given behavior rather than achieving
significant compensation for them. And in most cases, you'll find that the
behavior's effects are relatively limited on an individual basis, but
significant when considered in aggregate.

Litigation is expensive. When you're looking at a case where litigating your
claim can cost you well over 500k if you're _very_ lucky, even significant
awards can amount to nothing more than Pyrrhic victories. Even your average
punitive damages, when they're granted, aren't necessarily sufficient to push
you into the black.

In this case, it's highly unlikely that any individual plaintiff could ever
prove damages in excess of their legal costs. Individually, it's unlikely for
the class members to come out ahead even assuming they're able to litigate in
the first place. And they're damned sure unlikely to be able to change the
behavior as a result.

It's easy to complain about class actions but those complaints have to be put
in perspective. Environmental law alone would be sufficient to prove my point.
In any case, I'd recommend this for a pretty well-balanced and fair primer to
class actions (it's focused on procedure, but I think that's a good thing for
this purpose):

[http://law.duke.edu/grouplit/papers/classactionalexander.pdf](http://law.duke.edu/grouplit/papers/classactionalexander.pdf)

------
yp_all
I am under the impression that the information that this suit could have
revealed about Mr Jobs' character was potentially far more damaging than any
settlement or award the defendants might have to pay.

To put it another way, I get the impression that settlement here is primarily
for PR damage control, and only secondarily for limiting what the defendants
must ultimately pay.

Does this idea have any support? If I am wrong, please tell me why.

~~~
presootto
I agree that the settlement is mainly about damage control. I also think the
company most affected by said negative PR is Google.

I'm still waiting for Eric to apologize to the recruiter who was fired for
contacting an Apple employee and for Jonathan Rosemberg to have the decency of
resigning.

~~~
yuhong
What do you mean by "Jonathan Rosemberg"? I think he already resigned from
Google.

------
jasonlotito
Considering the severity of what was done (basically, keeping down the
salaries of everyone in the industry), this is good news.

------
dba7dba
Haha, I wish they get their day in the court.

I think the lawyers of plaintiffs thought they could 'manipulate' their
'clients' so that the lawyers could simply cut and run with their outsized fee
case but little did they know their 'clients' are not some easily manipulated
people who really need some cash now.

These clients are well educated and have the money to wait out AND can get a
great job anywhere.

I really wish to hear the real story of this case.

