🤑 It doesn’t get more affordable. Grab this 60% OFF Black Friday offer before it disappears…CLAIM SALE

Lawsuit says Disney, Sony, others conspired to suppress wages

Published 09/09/2014, 00:30
Updated 09/09/2014, 00:40
© Reuters The entrance gate to The Walt Disney Co is pictured in Burbank

By Brendan Pierson

(Reuters) - A federal lawsuit filed on Monday accuses Walt Disney Co, Sony Pictures and other leaders in special effects and animation of conspiring to suppress wages in the industry through "no-raid" agreements.

The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California, also names DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc, Digital Domain 3.0 and ImageMovers LLC as defendants.

The proposed class action alleges that the defendants agreed not to poach employees from one another, artificially depressing wages.

Disney had already reached a $9 million (5.6 million pounds) settlement with salaried employees in July 2013 as part of a broader class action lawsuit over no-raid agreements in the California technology industry.

The proposed class in the new lawsuit consists of "technical, artistic, creative and/or research and development" employees and is not restricted to salaried employees.

The lawsuit alleges that the conspiracy in the animation industry dates back to 1986, when Lucasfilm Ltd and Pixar, now both part of Disney, agreed not to cold call each other's employees and not to outbid each other's pay offers, according to the complaint.

Other defendants entered into similar agreements with one another by the mid-2000s or even earlier, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit points to numerous emails from company executives referring to no-raid agreements. In one 2007 email, Pixar president Ed Catmull is quoted as saying that poaching each others' employees with higher pay offers "seriously messes up the pay structure."

In another email, Catmull is quoted as saying that the animation companies had "avoided wars" because they had "conscientiously avoided raiding each other."

Catmull acted as an enforcer, according to the complaint, urging other companies to stick to the no-raid rule even when they weren't directly threatening Pixar.

In addition to the no-raid agreements, the lawsuit alleges that the companies' senior human resources and recruiting personnel met yearly to compare employee pay.

A Disney spokesman said the suit was without merit and the company would defend it vigorously. A DreamWorks spokeswoman declined to comment.

The new lawsuit comes about a month after U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose refused to approve a proposed $324.5 million settlement in the broader tech industry suit, partly because she found recovery for the class members would be too low compared with the Disney settlement approved earlier. Defendants in that case, including Google Inc and Apple Inc, are appealing her ruling.

© Reuters. The entrance gate to The Walt Disney Co is pictured in Burbank

The case is Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, No. 5:14-cv-04062.

(Reporting By Brendan Pierson; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi, Jonathan Oatis and Ken Wills)

Latest comments

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.
© 2007-2024 - Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.