Search for: "In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation"
Results 21 - 40
of 76
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
12 Apr 2013, 5:21 am
— from HR Defense Blog Ethical failure at Rutgers: Abusive coach, bad management, questionable lawyering — from Minding the Workplace Cease and Desist Letters: Defamation May Not Be An Issue But Watch Out for Tortious Interference — from Trade Secret Litigator BlogWage & Hour The Employment Law You Are Probably Breaking — from Evil HR Lady, Suzanne Lucas High-Tech Employers Dodge Class Certification In Anti-Solicitation Antitrust… [read post]
24 Apr 2012, 5:20 am
In In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2012 U.S. [read post]
11 Feb 2016, 8:44 am
In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. [read post]
25 Jan 2018, 12:37 pm
Employer Concerns In spite of the publicity given to the issuance of the HR Guidance in 2016 and high-profile class action cases such as In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-CV-02509 (“High-Tech”) (selected case documents available here), human resources personnel and other executives often do not realize that the antitrust laws apply to the employment marketplace. [read post]
26 Aug 2015, 6:40 am
The employees claimed that they had no reason to know the studios conspired to suppress compensation until 2013, when incriminating documents were unsealed and filed publicly in the High-Tech Employees Antitrust Litigation. [read post]
27 Apr 2012, 8:31 am
The recent decision in In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 11-CV-02509-LHK, 2012 U.S. [read post]
18 Feb 2021, 3:32 pm
Interested that you mentioned the digital advertising antitrust suit b/c that claims that ad prices are too high—press might make less money if it succeeds. [read post]
30 Oct 2013, 11:43 am
The judge In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, U.S. [read post]
23 Feb 2012, 12:54 pm
The antitrust message can discuss self-interest, and how employees that master the antitrust rules are most likely to accomplish their business goals and advance their careers. [read post]
27 Apr 2020, 12:36 pm
Ever since the high-tech employee antitrust action against some of the nation’s largest tech firms in 2010, the DOJ has taken a more aggressive stance toward policing alleged collusion between employers to fix wages or not hire one another’s employees absent some legitimate justification (such as two employers working jointly on a project involving the sharing of confidential information or a settlement in litigation of… [read post]
9 Mar 2015, 7:04 am
Here, the case, In re: High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, being heard in the U.S. [read post]
9 Aug 2016, 10:44 am
After that elevation, her portfolio still includes Litigation Section III–run by a lawyer named David C. [read post]
2 Nov 2022, 8:51 am
In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Lit., 856 F.Supp.2d 1103, 1123 (N.D. [read post]
27 Sep 2019, 6:00 am
They’re constantly trading off options to shape future rents. [read post]
23 Dec 2021, 7:28 am
Even with all of those things listed, we’re leaving much out. [read post]
2 Dec 2015, 11:13 am
In Re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. [read post]
14 Sep 2023, 6:00 am
The plot was fully revealed, however, when The New York Times published columns by Paul Krugman and Chris Sagers on April 18 and April 29, now more boldly asserting that “growing monopoly power is a big problem” and that “profits are at near-record highs” due to declining competition. [read post]
12 May 2018, 4:56 pm
April 3, 2014) (reversing magistrate judge’s exclusion of an expert witness who had advanced claims based upon p-value of 0.50); id. at 147 n. 116, citing In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litig., 2014 WL 1351040 (N.D. [read post]
16 Aug 2011, 3:23 pm
With reality television all the rage, viewers may wonder why there’s been no reality series about the inbred high-tech ecosystem of Silicon Valley. [read post]
1 Sep 2022, 10:29 pm
So I'll focus on ACT here.Ericsson and Apple have some agreement in place that in this litigation they weren't going to conduct discovery of each other's third-party advocacy efforts. [read post]
