An interesting case is playing out as we speak in Silicon Valley, where a group of high-tech employees has sued Google, Apple, Pixar, Lucasfilm, Adobe, Intel, and Intuit over an alleged “gentlemen’s agreement” not to recruit each other’s employees. In In Re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, filed last May in federal court in San Jose, Calif., the plaintiffs are relying heavily on evidence provided by the U.S. Department of Justice, which has already done its own investigation into the alleged practices.
The DOJ evidence includes several emails among the various companies alluding to their “gentlemen’s agreement” not to recruit or even offer jobs to employees of each other’s companies. One particularly damning excerpt:
On May 28, 2005, Mr. Chizen, Adobe’s CEO, emailed Mr. Jobs, then CEO of Apple, forwarding an internal Adobe email from Theresa Townsley, Adobe’s Senior Vice President for Human Resources, to others at Adobe, regarding “Recruitment of Apple Employees.” In that email, Ms. Townsley wrote: “Bruce and Steve Jobs have an agreement that we are not to solicit ANY Apple employees, and vice versa…. Please ensure all your worldwide recruiters know that we are not to solicit any Apple employee. I know that Jerry is soliciting one now, so he’ll need to back off.”
According to the terms of a September 2010 settlement with the DOJ, the companies are already forbidden from such collusion, but the civil suit by the workers is to collect on the presumably artificially reduced wages and thwarted job offers they were subject to while their employers were abiding by the agreement.
There are reasons behavior like this is prohibited: it’s anti-competitive and deprives workers from the mailroom to the C-suite the ability to ply their trade in a fair environment. If the plaintiffs’ allegations are true, their employers were clearly engaged in a conspiracy to cut job competition and keep salaries low.
Even more globally, the free market doesn’t work properly if its players are pulling their punches. Top talent, from CEOs to secretaries, need to be able to negotiate in good faith and seek better employment if their current employers aren’t giving them what they need. They can’t do that if their current employer and their prospective employer are winking at each other and playing footsie under the table.
Executives all over should be watching this case. Here at Legal Issues in the Executive Suite, we promise to keep you posted.
Ahmad, Zavitsanos & Mensing LLC
-
Recent Posts
- Non-compete breach in business contract nets client $25.6M
- Northern District of Texas temporarily enjoins FTC from enforcing its non-compete ban
- Whistleblower client helps government settle $15 million Baylor heart surgery Medicare fraud case
- Tech entrepreneur Mike Lynch acquitted of defrauding HP; he was smart to testify
- Boeing CEO resigns – the top must drop in crises like these
Legal Issues in the Executive Suite
Categories
- ADR
- Arbitration agreements
- Business Continuity
- CEOs
- Change of Control Agreements
- Clawback provisions
- Complaints Against Executives
- Confidential Information
- Corporate culture
- Corporate successsion
- Covenants Not to Compete
- Criminal Background Checks
- Criminal Prosecutions
- Defend Trade Secrets Act
- Depositions
- Discrimination
- Dodd-Frank
- EEOC
- Executive Compensation
- Executive contracts
- Executive Management Style
- False Claims Act
- Fiduciary Duty
- Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
- Fraud
- Legal
- Litigation
- Mandatory Retirement Age
- Non-Competes
- Pension plans
- Qui Tam
- Restraint of trade
- Retention agreements
- Sarbanes-Oxley
- Severance Packages
- Sexual harassment
- SLAPP
- Social Media
- Sports contracts
- Stock Options
- Trade Secrets
- Uncategorized
- Uniform Trade Secrets Act
- Whistleblowers
- Workplace Romances
Archives
- September 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- March 2024
- September 2023
- May 2023
- August 2022
- May 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- March 2021
- November 2020
- August 2020
- June 2020
- February 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- December 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- February 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- October 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- September 2013
- August 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011