Case No.: 11-CV-02509-LHK ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
U n i t e d S t a t e s D i s t r i c t C o u r t
F o r t h e N o r t h e r n D i s t r i c t o f C a l i f o r n i a
Mot. for Class Cert. (“Shaver Decl.”), Ex. 6 ¶ 1, ECF No. 291. Fichtner worked for Intel in Arizona from July of 1993 through November of 2006 and again from May of 2008 through May of 2011.
CAC ¶ 17; Shaver Decl., Ex. 7 ¶ 1. Hariharan worked for Lucasfilm in California from January of 2007 through August of 2008.
CAC ¶ 18; Shaver Decl., Ex. 8
¶ 1. Marshall worked for Adobe in California from July of 2006 through December of 2006.
CAC ¶ 19; Shaver Decl., Ex. 9 ¶ 1. Finally, Stover worked for Intuit in California from at least November of 2006 through December of 2009.
CAC ¶ 20; Shaver Decl., Ex. 10 ¶ 1.
Market for High Tech Employees
Plaintiffs assert that in a properly functioning and lawfully competitive labor market, each Defendant would compete for employees by soliciting current employees from one or more of the other Defendants.
¶ 41. This method of recruiting, to which Defendants refer as “cold calling,” includes communicating directly in any manner—including orally, in writing, telephonically, or electronically—with another company’s employee who has not otherwise applied for a job.
Plaintiffs allege that cold calling is a key competitive tool that companies use to recruit employees, particularly high tech employees with advanced skills and abilities.
¶ 45. Through recruiting employees from competitors, a company is able to take advantage of the efforts its rival has expended in soliciting, interviewing, and training skilled labor, while simultaneously inflicting a cost on the rival by removing an employee on whom the rival may depend.
Plaintiffs further contend that the use of cold calling among Defendants commonly increases total compensation and mobility for all of Defendants’ employees.
¶¶ 48, 50. Most directly, Plaintiffs allege that the practice of cold calling provides the recipient of a cold call with opportunities to secure higher wages either by switching to a rival company or by negotiating increased compensation with the recipient’s current employer.
¶ 46. Plaintiffs further allege that the compensation effects of cold calling are not limited to those individuals who receive the calls. Rather, Plaintiffs allege, the effects of cold calling (and the effects of eliminating cold calling) have a broader, common impact on Defendants’ salaried employees, especially their technical employees.
Case5:11-cv-02509-LHK Document531 Filed10/24/13 Page3 of 86