Siddharth Hariharan, et al v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al

Filing 1

FILED ON 11/07/2013 PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO RULE 23(f). SERVED ON 11/07/2013. [8856405] (HC)

Case No. __________
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

IN RE HIGH-TECH EMPLOYEE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

Petition for permission to appeal from the United States District Court
Northern District of California
The Honorable Lucy H. Koh, Presiding
Case No. 5:11-2509-LHK
DEFENDANT-PETITIONERS’ EXCERPTS OF RECORD
VOLUME III OF VIII
ROBERT A. VAN NEST, #84065
DANIEL PURCELL, #191424
EUGENE M. PAIGE, #202849
JUSTINA SESSIONS, #270914
KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
633 Battery Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-1809
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 415 397 7188
Attorneys for Defendant and Petitioner
Google Inc.

789556

EXCERPTS OF RECORD
N.D.CAL.
DOCKET #

DOCUMENT

PAGE

Volume I of VIII
(District Court Orders—Public Versions)
1.

531

Oct. 24, 2013 Order Granting Plaintiffs’
Supplemental Motion for Class Certification
(public redacted version)

0001

2.

382

April 15, 2013 Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(public redacted version)

0087

Volume II of VIII
(Expert Reports – Public Versions)
3.

518-2 518-4

Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy
(public redacted version)

0140

4.

424-2

Supplemental Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer,
Ph.D.
(public redacted version)

0340

Volume III of VIII
(Expert Reports – Public Versions)
5.

440

Supplemental Expert Report of Professor Kevin M.
Murphy
(public redacted version)

0402

6.

442

Expert Report of Kathryn M. Shaw, Ph.D.
(public redacted version)

0570

Volume IV of VIII
(Depositions and Declarations – Public Versions)
7.

308-1,
445-2

Deposition of Edward Leamer

0676

8.

538-8 538-11

Declaration of Danny McKell in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification
(public redacted version)

0691

1
789556

N.D.CAL.
DOCKET #
9.

516-6

10.

DOCUMENT

PAGE

Declaration of Frank Wagner in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification
(public redacted version)

0713

District Court Docket Report

0725

Volume V of VIII
(District Court Orders FILED UNDER SEAL)
11.

Oct. 24, 2013 Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification
(under seal version)

0804

12. 383

April 15, 2013 Order Granting in Part and Denying in
Part Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification
(under seal version)

0890

Volume VI of VIII
(Expert Reports FILED UNDER SEAL)
13.

Expert Report of Professor Kevin M. Murphy
(under seal version)

0944

14.

Supplemental Expert Report of Edward E. Leamer,
Ph.D.
(under seal version)

1144

Volume VII of VIII
(Expert Reports FILED UNDER SEAL)
15.

Supplemental Expert Report of Professor Kevin M.
Murphy
(under seal version)

1180

16.

Expert Report of Kathryn M. Shaw, Ph.D.
(under seal version)

1348

17.

Expert Witness Report of Kevin F. Hallock, Figure 7

1454

2

N.D.CAL.
DOCKET #

DOCUMENT

PAGE

Volume VIII of VIII
(Depositions and Declarations
FILED UNDER SEAL)
18.

Deposition of Michael Devine

1455

19.

Declaration of Danny McKell in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification
(under seal version)

1458

20.

Declaration of Frank Wagner in Support of
Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Class Certification
(under seal version)

1480

21.

Exhibit 24 to Declaration of Lin W. Kahn in Support 1492
of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Supplemental
Motion for Class Certification

3

5

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

Filed0621 13

Page1

of

35

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION

RE HIGH TECH EMPLOYEE
ANTITRUST LITIGATION
IN

THIS

Master Docket

No 11 CV2509 LHK

DOCUMENT RELATES TO

ALL ACTIONS

SUPPLEMENTAL EXPERT REPORT OF PROFESSORKEVIN

June

21

2013

M MURPHY

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

Filed0621 13

Page2

of

35

Table of Contents

I
II

INTRODUCTION

1

THE VARIATION IN INDIVIDUAL COMPENSATION WHICH DR
LEAMERS ANALYSES IGNORE SHOWS THAT A RAISE FORONE OR
SOME DOES NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE A RAISE FOR ALL OR NEARLY
ALL

2

A

DR LEAMER

FOCUSESON CORRELATIONS

OF AVERAGE

COMPENSATION

FOR JOB TITLES WITH OVERALL AVERAGE COMPENSATION AND HE DOES
NOT ANALYZE THE SUBSTANTIAL VARIATION IN COMPENSATION CHANGES
FOR INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES

B

THERE

IS

SUFFICIENT VARIATION

IN

COMPENSATION ACROSS

2

INDIVIDUALS

WITH THE SAME JOB TITLE THAT ONE CANNOT ASSUME THAT
ADJUSTING ONE EMPLOYEES COMPENSATION REQUIRES ADJUSTING
OTHERS
III

5

PROPERLY INTERPRETED DR LEAMERS CORRELATION EVIDENCE
SHOWS THAT LITTLE VARIATION IN AVERAGEJOBLEVEL
COMPENSATION IS EXPLAINEDBY CHANGES IN CLASS WIDE
AVERAGE COMPENSATION

A

IT IS DEVIATIONS

IN

COMPENSATION NOT CORRELATIONS THAT MATTER

FOR EVALUATING PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS

B

7

CORRELATION LEVELS THAT

DR LEAMER

8
FINDS

ASTOUNDING IMPLY

THAT ALMOST ALL THE VARIATION IN JOBLEVEL COMPENSATION IS NOT
EXPLAINED BY CLASS WIDE AVERAGE COMPENSATION

IV

10

DR LEAMERS REGRESSION ANALYSIS DOES NOT SHOW THAT FORCES
OF INTERNAL EQUITY COMBINED WITH THE HYPOTHESIZED
SOMEWHAT RIGID WAGE STRUCTURE GENERATE CLASS WIDE
IMPACT FROM THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENTS

12

A

13

DR LEAMER

IGNORES THE

B DR LEAMERS

C
D

HORSE

REFLECTION

RACE IS

PROBLEM

UNINFORMATIVE

16

DR LEAMER

DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TENDENCY OF
COMPENSATION TO REVERT TO THE MEAN
EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

SHOWS THAT

DO NOT REFLECT THE CAUSALITY
PLAINTIFFS CLAIMS OF

DR LEAMERS

REQUIRED BY

CLASSWIDE IMPACT

i

18

REGRESSION RESULTS

HIS

THEORY TO SUPPORT
22

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

1

The Same

False

Document440

Causality

is

Filed0621 13

Page3

of

35

Found with Another Compensation

Dataset

2

E
V

A Regression Model that Explains the Change in Chicago Temperature
as
Catch up from the Difference
between Chicago and Milwaukee
Temperatures Illustrates Dr Leamers Misleading Conclusions

24

CONCLUSION

DR LEAMER DOES NOT ESTABLISH
CLASS

VI

22

IS

25

THAT THE PROPOSED TECHNICAL

PROPERLY DEFINED

26

DR LEAMERS CONDUCT REGRESSION REMAINS

UNINFORMATIVE

TECHNICALAPPENDIX MODELLING THE REFLECTION PROBLEM

ii

27

29

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

I

I

Page4

of

35

INTRODUCTION

1

Filed0621 13

Document440

have been asked by Counsel for Defendants to respond to the Supplemental

E Leamer PhD

Report of Edward

Dr Leamers
so

analysis answers the Courts

that compensation

rigid

together

Leamer Supplemental Report

through

necessarily result in

an impact

would

the entire salary

contains

fundamental

salary structures

would

necessarily

and

e

i

in entirely different jobs

2

structure

I

have concluded that

whether

to consider

impact to an employee with one job

to other employees

errors of economics

and

Defendants

for employees with entirely different titles

time such that a detrimental

ripple across

whether

question

1

Expert

were

move

would

title

that any impact

Dr Leamers

report

and provides no evidence that the

statistics

Defendants had such rigid compensation structures that suppressing wages of some employees

would

2

wages

necessarily suppress

First

Dr Leamers

average compensation

analysis is based

compensation

changes

employees

of individual

e

impact i

first

a

that

3

Second

compensation
necessarily

required

raise

4

Third

same

result in raises for

1

two

In

Re

High Tech

Certification

April

statistical

fallacies

in compensation

Thus

call

would

and

his analysis cannot

conduct had class wide
compensation

increase

even

by

job title with overall

average

or all

from one that

fallacies

virtually

Antitrust Litigation

Order

is

in constructing

guarantee that

E Leamer

5

at

does not analyze the

the challenged

cold

and

analysis nor his regression analysis can distinguish

Employee

2013

a

title

job titles

Class cannot show that raises for some employees

some

structure

Supplemental Expert Report of Edward

2

how

by

job title

neither his correlation

these

receive

He

differences

of average compensation

somewhat rigid compensation

combination

of

of the proposed class

of compensation

with the same job

who

for the proposed Technical

victim to two well known

ignores

link in his theory

to employees

correlations

would

on averages

he

so

among employees

other employees with the

to

members

for all job titles in the proposed class

compensation

demonstrate the

of all or nearly all

May 10

2013

not

In particular

his regression

Dr Leamer

Leamer Supplemental

1

in

Leamer

model

will obtain

Order Granting in Part Denying

36

Dr

a

falls

In

the type of

Report

Part Motion for Class

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

regression results that he

does even

Filed0621 13

Document440

if

Page5

of

on

there is zero effect of an individual’s pay

35

the pay of

others

5

Fourth

Dr Leamer

does not establish that the proposed class

6

Finally

Dr Leamer

did not address the Courts

the Conduct

Regression that he offers as evidence of

properly

is

improve

invitation to

defined

the

accuracy

of

impact and damages and

generalized
3

thus did not respond to the lack

of precision

of his estimates

II

THE VARIATION IN INDIVIDUAL COMPENSATION WHICH DR
LEAMERS ANALYSES IGNORE SHOWS THAT A RAISE FOR ONE OR
SOME DOES NOT NECESSARILY CAUSE A RAISE FOR ALL OR NEARLY
ALL

7

The

claims

is

question

that I consider

whether a change

cause a change

relevant

in compensation

in compensation

for evaluating
at one point

for the class as a

the Courts

concerns about Plaintiffs

in the compensation

whole

This

is

would

structure

different than whether

average

Comovement
compensation

common

response to

which

compensation

is

factors that have

the focus of

illustrate

Dr

nothing

Leamers

the use of umbrellas and windshield wipers in

other

Rather they

A

empirical

are both caused

Dr Leamer Focuses

by

a

a

co movement

Dr Leamers

could simply reflect

analysis is not informative

correlation

or

external

cold

He

how

and causation

but neither

causes the

factor rain

on Correlations of Average Compensation

with Overall Average Compensation and

as to

calling

co movement

city are highly correlated

common

the

sharing theory

differ absent the alleged

between

the difference

since

do with

to

members would

of different class

To

agreements

moves together

for different job titles

for

Job

Titles

Does Not Analyze the Substantial

Variation in Compensation Changes for Individual Employees

8
various

Dr Leamers
job

titles

empirical

are correlated with

proposed class as a whole
individual

3

Order at

level which

42 43

analysis focuses

and fn

is

He

movements

on whether changes

in average compensation

in the average compensation

level

does not examine whether changes in compensation

where

the initial impact

15

2

of any cold call

would occur

for

for the

at

the

necessarily cause

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

changes

Dr Leamer

same job

for all or nearly all employees in the

no

offers

postulate either

Plaintiffs

acknowledged
level

But he chose

across

by

to

work with

forces

within the same job

individuals

data available

that operate

at

to

that

and

were so

structures

move

necessarily

job title

would

that compensation

rigid

through

together

would

that any impact

The amount

ripple across

it

is

an impact

the compensation

of an individual

always identical for individuals

eg

formula

permitted then
individuals

receives

a

a change

in that

cold

by promoting

there is wide variation

presume

as

Dr

in compensation

in

her to

compensation

Leamer appears

to

do

because the firm has sufficient

compensation

of a given

compensation

for that employee

individual

Leamer Supplemental Report

5

Order at

if

If

for individuals

that an increase
in

flexibility

in

in

19

36

3

no

the

deviation

for other

an individual
if as a regular matter

same job one cannot
for one

employee in

for all employees with the

pressure

from a cold call

without changing compensation

to

pay were

the job with

when

to respond to outside

resulting

chooses

require a change

in compensation

compensation

such as pressure

e

i

were determined by a fixed

compensation

would

if it

individual

better paid job title In contrast

changes

would

employees over time determines

a cold call

for one individual

response to a cold call would cause an increase
job title

receives

or

salary

structure

of individual

title

those

in entirely different jobs

that the firm does not respond

a

precisely

5

factors such as level of tenure

same job assuming

call

who

within a job

based only on objective

across

Defendants

whether a firmhas to adjust compensation of a large number of individuals
increase

data is likely to

impact to an employee with one

to other employees

the entire salary

He

the individual

for employees with entirely different titles

in compensation

of variation

job titles

averaging

asked

as the Court

time such that a detrimental

necessarily result in

at

the individual

However

effects

whether

effects that determine

individual

studied

level and that

the individual

4

4

or for the proposed

or across

title

him could be

averages claiming

title

in a title can average out the individual

individuals

10

title

35

of

evidence that demonstrates the type of propagation that

empirical

that the compensation

be dominated

forces

Page6

a whole

class as

9

compensation

in

Filed0621 13

Document440

for other

same

on
to

adjust

employees even those

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

in

the

same

job title

grants increase
individual

For example the firm can provide

base salary within

to another

job title with

the existing

a

would allow

11

employees Even within

The

because
in

by

received

there is substantial

12

existence

firm

correlations

6

although he

fails to

common

would have

factor that

tremendous success

well established

in

recent

employees

is

Intel

within a job

affected

at a given

in

at

from

does not support

himself

by very

time While
over

sharing theory

identifies such a factor

that this type of

decision

to

However

factors

it

contamination
freeze

4

exactly

in

that

year Apples

from a relative newcomer

to

a

while compensation received

also is affected

Computerworld

is

in

salaries in 20097 is a

by

other factors that

over time

Down

when he

for producers and directors

levels and changes

transformation

similar category

by common

Dr Leamers

large bonuses

compensation

on

the individual

factors that can cause similar adjustments

Similarly Intels

CEO

pay across

point in

67

Freezes Salaries

title

pay

years and Googles

a

and decreases
changes

consistent with

a firm tends to be positively correlated

many common

uncommon changes

Leamer Supplemental Report

at

acknowledge

affected

tech firm fall into

result in substantial

Agam Shah

the

broadly since doing so

below show that

and decreases

wide Dr Leamer

analysis reflects

individual

of

the Pixar data are contaminated

2006

discuss

annual compensation

employees

what his correlation

by

titles

individualization

of positive

I

increases

and small increases

individual

employee compensation

2002 and

job

the fact that there are

it reflects

argues that

or stock

or promote

divergence in compensation of individuals

individual

a mixture of large

compensation

time

35

salary Moreover the firm would have an incentive

higher

the Defendants routinely differentiate

In particular

show

of

bonuses

retention

salary range for that title

Data on compensation of individuals which

level

Page7

the firm to minimize its labor costs

that flexibility there is substantial

7

one time

respond in one of these other ways rather than adjust compensation

to

6

Filed0621 13

Document440

March 23 2009

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

B

There

One Cannot Assume

That

Title

Compensation Requires

13

performed

I

several

Adjusting

and that

the data

35

The

I

One Employees

That Adjusting

which compensation

to

displays the cumulative

in compensation

8

histories

These exhibits

are

employees that

of individual

summarize more systematically

of

compensation

job title at each of the Defendants

the type of variation

illustrate

throughout

present

1

Exhibit

for all employees within a single selected

meant simply to

of

Others

to understand the extent

analyses

employees moves together

individual

Page8

Variation in Compensation Across Individuals With

Is Sufficient

Same Job

Filed0621 13

Document440

is

my subsequent

in

exhibits

14

1 shows

Exhibit

cumulative

changes

2010 compared

in

2005

to

consistent with correlation

diverge

15

period in

The

title

magnitude with some

8
selected

I

title

before

25
If

9

the job

2006
than

to

have

titles

then

individuals

in

A
the

receiving

to

large increases

the job

high positive

51

years in the middle

based on number of employees

in changes

in compensation

for

changes for Adobes

infer

more than 25 percent

Lucasfilm because

selected

I

reasonable
the

first

consistent

the

from this that

title

data

to display

and others

by the Defendant
did

not include

or the closest
graphically

in

job

that

titles

number

to

chart

in a single

one ranked alphabetically

means that compensation

is

its

25 employees

that included

seemed

Class thus supporting

directly affects

it
I

then

a fact which

levels

title

as

correlation

of the Technical

for

of a

title

the conclusion

moves in a way

that the

title

that is

and the class

with sharing of gains and broad impact of the

under study or the rest of the Technical

Dr Leamer considers

individuals

that

change job

titles

in

my analysis

his calculated

Class

correlations

because moving an individual into a new job

promoting him from a Software Engineer 3 to a Software Engineer

structure

2007 and 2008

to

be

positive

10

individuals

in levels

members who remained employed

class

2006 2010

25 employees

whether

Leamer Supplemental Report

include

2010

each Defendant

rest

compensation

anti cold calling conspiracy

I

year to year changes

fully

time series can

correlated

For example compensation

with as many employees

contained

Dr Leamer

coordinated

10

by restricting the data

title

words

is

vary in sign and

selected for

compensation

high and

In other

of

have examples

one job

According to

similar to

I

high9

the large annual variation

same job

each year from 2005 through

in

in order

more

the

have very different

title

divergence in compensation over time

the top three job titles at each Defendant

start in

employees with the

job

levels that are

exhibit summarizes

who

individuals

with the same job

2 examines compensation changes between

Exhibit

2007

in

This substantial

and can have substantial

substantially

of the class

start

over time and can end up with very different compensation

compensation

in

who

that individuals

compensation

in

response

to

a cold

call

or otherwise

more broadly

5

4 is one
without

way

in

adjusting

which

a firm

the firms

title

eg

can increase an

compensation

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

suffering

more than 25 percent Taken together

large decreases

based on

statistics

this

title

individuals

adjusting

by

and job title

for individual

eliminating

11

The

in

compensation

the overall

compensation

indicates

peers

Again

peers

percent

compensation

individual

exhibit as deviations

17

compensation

changes

between

compensation

that the individual

from the average change

the data

after

each of the

firm to adjust

same

job

10

exercise

10

for the

The

exhibit

controlling for

tenure gender
between

age

based on changes in

and job

A value

10

of

less than equivalent

percent

substantial

flexibility

changes

in adjusting

shown

in the

year

3

from Exhibit

across

greater than equivalent

percent

received

2001

between

the changes

age

that reflect

characteristics

I

by

group the data into four categories

shows

10

percent

the large differences

employees with the lowest compensation

changes

standardizing

in the exhibit the top and bottom

quartiles

percent

a

at

those with the

and what would be predicted

that Defendants

change and show

and bottom 25

effect

with a wide distribution of annual adjusted

4 summarizes

Exhibit

for

summary

in this exhibit reflects the differences

obtained an increase

indicates

show

the results

in

and that individuals

that the individual

10

while

the

in individuals compensation

characteristics

for an individual

structure

including

impacts on compensation

systematic

room

35

of

of this flexibility

differentiation summarized

the change

percent

employees

3 examines average annual changes

after

2 and

Exhibit

that there is substantial

differently for different individual

Exhibit

and 2011

top

B show

and that Defendants take advantage

16

Page9

type of analysis for more years and a larger number of jobs

seven Defendant firms in Appendix
compensation

Filed0621 13

Document440

changes

deciles and the
in compensation

and those with the highest

tenure gender and job title For example at

Adobe

employees in the bottom decile of the distribution have annual compensation changes

that are

29

percent

below the average employees

compensation

changes that are 29 percent

compensation

changes between

compensation

increase

This
those

comparison

with

less

eliminates

in

two groups

the compensation

systematic

effects

the top decile of the distribution have

Thus

the average

is on average 60 percent

Similarly the difference

11

these

above

in

is

nearly

higher

60 percent the

than the increase

changes between

such as larger average

tenure

6

the difference

in

annual

the

top groups

of the bottom

annual

group

the employees in the bottom

increases for

younger

employees

or for

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Adobe and

quartile at

compensation

room

for

a

Filed06 21 13

Document440

those in the top quartile is almost

changes at

Adobe

40 percent

12

The

of one employee

of

35

large variation

shows

as well as at the other six Defendants

firm to adjust the compensation

Page10

in

that there is

ample

without adjusting the compensation

of others

18

Thus

1 4 show

Exhibits

As a

individual

level

individual

employees even

employee who
the

III

19

same job

receives

that the Defendant

firms routinely adjust compensation

result there is sufficient variation

within

same

the

an outside

compensation of an

that a firmcan increase

job title

offer without adjusting

growth for

compensation of other employees with

13
title

PROPERLY INTERPRETED DR LEAMERS CORRELATION EVIDENCE
SHOWS THAT LITTLE VARIATION IN AVERAGE JOBLEVEL
COMPENSATION IS EXPLAINED BY CHANGES IN CLASS WIDE
AVERAGE COMPENSATION
Dr Leamer

compensation

presents

correlations

that

compare

most of the Technical

reveal

a

large

amount

top down budgeting method and

consistent with a

of

Class titles of each defendant

allows the effects of the anti cold calling conspiracy

However

whether the correlation

Dr

evidence

14

a

is

movement over time

the

of each title with the average compensation

claims that these calculations

20

of compensation

in rates

at the

Technical

of the firms

co movement
He

Class and

of compensation

claims that

this

somewhat rigid

to spread broadly

consistent

of the average

co movement

salary structure

across

with

among

each

is

which

15
firm

his theory is only part of

comovement
the issue that

Leamer must

purposes of understanding
is

inconsistent

Leamer claims

12

The difference

differences
13

Appendix

A provides

in order to support

his theory

whether Plaintiffs claims have merit

with a compensation structure that

essence

as differences
additional

increase
in

not

Leamer Supplemental Report

Intel

relied

upon by

Dr

and Apple within

4

Leamer Supplemental Report

at

and a 19 percent

decrease

is

relevant

for

whether evidence of
rigid

in the

38 percent

way

that

consistent

In Exhibits

Dr

with

36 percent

logs

evidence

changes for employees

4

15

is

is

More

of hypothesis testing is not to provide evidence

between a 19 percent

are defined

compensation
14

The

address

7

Leamer in his Reply
a single

job title

Report of the dispersion

of

a

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

hypothesis but to offer evidence capable of rejecting
Evidence

that hypothesis

Page11

of

35

were not true

if it

consistent with the theory being true and the theory being false is not

that is equally

Dr Leamers

informative

Filed06 21 13

Document440

analysis fails to meet this essential principle of scientific

methodology

21

In the language of

that a change

evidence of

in one variable

mischaracterizes

between

Economics tells us
structure

is

not whether
exercised

17

also overstates

of the measured

that what

to

Correlation

but not

the series

the extent

scope

how much the two

members

23

is

relevant

in

to

which compensation

17

for

are

them

for individual

the variation

example

in

characteristics

Leamer Supplemental Report

See

job

title

theory

movement and

for Evaluating

high

If

to change

correlation

of

a

coefficient

firms

job titles deviate

compensation

from one another

If

it

they diverge

if as

substantially

Dr Leamer

claims a

Large

does not follow that Defendants have

in response to a cold call

in

job level average compensation

tenure gender and job title over the period

42 46

George Casella and Roger

then the

compensation for all or nearly all class

annual changes

age

series are linearly

they track closely then the firmhas

Even

Positive

which two

the rigidity

job titles

titles

imply about his claim of a

over time There can be large

series deviate

of alternative

differentiate pay across

structures that require

5 shows

the degree to

understanding

they raise one employees compensation

Exhibit

adjusting

16

if

the similarity in

causality16

then offers only

Dr Leamers

coefficients

even though they have a

Job Title Change Correlations

compensation

he

Not Correlations that Matter

measures

firmcan and does differentiate pay across job
Share of

but

reflect

correlations

they are weakly or strongly correlated

little

in the other

to support

does not explain what his correlation

compensation

rigid

that his correlations

Claims

related to one another

deviations

causation

Deviations in Compensation

It is

Dr Leamer

somewhat

Dr Leamer

the implications

Plaintiffs

22

below

implies

or similar movement in average

correlation

does not establish the necessary

as I explain

A

Dr Leamer

leads to or causes a change

co movement However

compensation

Moreover

economics

L Berger

Statistical Inference

8

1990 pp 160 168

after

2001

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

The

2011.18

exhibit

shows

distribution of changes

4 which summarizes

Exhibit

in

compensation

change

relative to the

percent

adjusting

after

changes

in

average while

average Thus

percent

largest for

18

changes
across

in that

weighted by the number of

deviations

decreased by

job

higher

percent

in changes

variation

by 16

in job average compensation

of the employees in each

in

at

decile

Similarly the

jobs in the top

in job average

smallest for Intel but is economically large for

Dr Leamers

each of

at

each job

These calculations

regressions

of

correct

compensation

generating

October

to the results but

some

characteristics

select

in

I

as

follows

Leamer when constructing
the average

was wide

Defendant and

these

in individual

regressions

has expressed

have calculated

First I take

his deciles
of

I

common

see

jobs that span

plot the annual changes

characteristics

Correcting

ranges

across

titles

in

average

lockstep average

in

for individual

I

the

same

support

from 9

at

makes

Expert Report of Edward

statistics

the

without

correcting

same economic

very

is

the

two

years for

Google

9

in

which

may be
Ph

2002

to

50

each Defendant

at

after

Finally

am
at

D

E Leamer

for individual

same employment

I

are

little

conclusions

from each of the ten deciles

have 50 jobs for each Defendant
the

The joblevel deviations

characteristics

concern that variation in individual characteristics

the top five jobs

across

by using annual level

and fixed job effects

have fewer than 50 jobs for most Defendants

until

employees

five The number of jobs plotted

report

in annual compensation

variation

confirm that rather than moving

over time in joblevel compensation
also

my initial

from

a sample of the most

based on 2001 2011 employment which

number

job titles

2006 2011

have fewer than five jobs

the next largest jobs

require

to

exhibits

and obtain very similar results which

the jobs

deciles

The

Dr Leamer

128 134

20

some

7 I select

for the difference

of the variation

1 2012

that there

changes on individual characteristics

measured by the fixed job effects
difference

showed

I

deciles for each

20

25

the analysis of the top

In Exhibit

Data for Lucasfilm are limited

take

The

Google and Pixar and

report where

for these job titles

compensation

I

the annual change

quartile

did

by

group data into categories

the jobs

Adobe was almost 20

at

I

changes and those with the smallest

in the characteristics

7 and 8 extend

Exhibits

Exhibit

19

As

6.19

Exhibit

Defendants

24

18

between

I

for all firms This

in jobs in the top decile than in jobs in the bottom

higher

for differences

is

changes

the jobs with the largest negative

job average compensation

compensation

level

the large differences

quartile than in jobs in the bottom

all

employee

summarized in

is

35

of

Using Adobe as an example the jobs in the top decile increased

relative to the

Adobe was about 30

the

Page12

in annual changes

variation

average compensation

the largest compensation

changes

compensation

15

show

to

employee years with

percent

that there is substantial

joblevel

in

Filed06 21 13

Document440

calculating

this

Because

step

Second

measure used by

when
the

Intel in years

first

plotting the

change to be

2004 through

changes
at

I

Dr
least

2011

I

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

job level compensation changes
jobs seeing large increases

25

8 extends

Exhibit

job title compensation

in

some

any given year vary both

2005

wage growth
structure

requires

more than that

for all jobs is roughly the

average compensation

receiving

a

cold

or for

went up 40

fact that pay
across

call

jobs were

not

a minimum changes
by 50

routinely increases

job one cannot conclude

another

at

that an increase

some

percent

percent

other reason

more

common and

in

was

in

a

a

wage

22

Over

somewhat rigid wage
in

way

systematic

compensation

If for example

and only 10

percent

for

pay for one group caused by an employee

shared with

group

the other

for one group than the other implies

that the

in average

changes

the increase

for one job

21

which simply means that

of jobs increased

do with whether

Rigidity has to

same or

of annual

term But

35

or decreases

2 3 4 and 5 year changes

greater over the long term than the short

is

of

magnitude with some

smaller increases

rather than the sequence

longer time frames compensation for the majority

Page13

in sign and

and others

large decreases

the time period and looks at

relative to

Filed06 21 13

Document440

Indeed

in pay

that increases

structure changes substantially

the

over time

rather than remains rigid

B

Correlation Levels
the Variation in

that

Dr Leamer Finds

Job Level

Compensation

Astounding
is

23

Not
Explained

Imply that Almost All
by Class Wide

Average Compensation

26

Dr Leamer

compensation

reached the wrong conclusion

structures

from

He

structure

provides

no means

of evaluating

makes very
22
I

is

changes for individual characteristics

little

difference

it

appears that he did not consider

rigidity

of the compensation

of say

whether a correlation

0.4 is sufficient to

somewhat rigid

7 and 8 show changes in the raw data

Exhibits

compensation

for the supposed

implies

conclude that a compensation structure

21

analysis because

his correlation

what a particular level of correlation

about the rigidity of the Defendants

I

have also looked

at

and fixed job effects

versions

of these

Adjusting

charts

adjusting

for individual

the

characteristics

to the results

have performed the same analysis for starting years of 2004 and 2006 because the starting year matters

somewhat

for the average

level of

change

although

much

less so for the variation in

comparable
23

Leamer

Dep

at

563 815

10

changes and

the results are

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Filed06 21 13

Document440

Page14

35

of

classwide
Dr Leamer

27

calculates

between

correlation

average compensation24 that range from

average hides wide variation
be unwarranted

even

all

if

0.60

is

It

changes

means

means

movements

for

raw data

20

or only

his conclusion

correlation

would

changes and

compensation

roughly

is

percent

if

somewhat
across

to

it there is

compensation

rigid

the class irrespective

variation

in

across

individual

the Courts

structures

the

Defendants

25
In his

is

backup

The square

the

Dr Leamer provided

is

across

of the correlation

so

of the

coefficient

variance

that

necessarily

title

0.80 This
in

job level compensation

in

in

at all

in

does not

sharing

Dr

move

would

calculates

Dr Leamers

jobs

The wide
inference

so rigid that compensation

through

together

necessarily

excluding

in lockstep

of compensation

Leamer

were

move

which Defendants have

job title does not support

an estimate of the mean correlation
of these

result

for

time such that a

in an impact

Given

the job at issue

which

measures

is

0.57

by firm based
I use 0.6 for

measures the percentage

not the

changes

we

observe

variance This shows

misguided

11

is

on his

illustrative

of the variance

by changes in the classwide average

range of variation in compensation
root

sense

salary structures

would

or

the

to

number of

compensation

Defendants

changes that are explained

the square

correlation

a

0.64

26

necessitate

coefficients

job title and

that remains after

compensation

of classwide compensation

classwide average

The average

compensation

However

uses the average

similar to the

methodology

titles

would

impact to an employee with one job

Dr Leamer actually
this

that

employees within

employees with entirely different
detrimental

joblevel

a

controlling for changes

after

correlation

no economically meaningful

of the correlation

words

no

for

controlling for

the square root of

of the total variation

there were

after

of variation

job level compensation

less than

percent

remains

wide average equals

80

in order to interpret and evaluate

the average compensation

.62 The amount

1

in

means

of the variance

Given that Defendants data show that

or anything close

equals

percent

in the class

average class level compensation

26

64

that

that the remaining variation

29

of 0.6 between

the class wide average

in

accounting

jobs

joblevel

were equal to his average estimated

A correlation

findings

the class wide average

24

But

jobs

across

between

of the true correlations

important to understand what a correlation

Dr Leamers

that

correlations

This

25

28

the

0.96 to 0.99 across the seven Defendants

in the estimated

class wide average compensation

changes in job level averages and the

is

.36

in

0.36

Leamers

focus

purposes

joblevel
0.62 in this example

measured by the standard

why Dr

shrinkage

deviation

which

on the degree of

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

e

i

other employees in entirely different jobs
salary

Filed06 21 13

Document440

would

that any impact

Page15

35

of

ripple across

the entire

27

structure

DR LEAMERS

IV

OF INTERNAL

REGRESSION ANALYSIS DOES NOT SHOW THAT FORCES
EQUITY COMBINED WITH THE HYPOTHESIZED

SOMEWHAT RIGID WAGE STRUCTURE GENERATE CLASS WIDE
IMPACT FROM THE CHALLENGED AGREEMENTS
Dr Leamer

30
model

explains

be drawn from

his regression

as follows

effects but could

compensation
a

somewhat

also
the

at

come from

same time

rigid compensation

company by company
compete

to

Dr Leamer

in one part of the firm

be shared with

refers to it

do so with

a regression

all

model

to

that operate

by

revealed

as an explanation

eg

my correlation

model which

regression

to

on both

forces

demonstrate that increased

two

which an

increase

in

types

title

increase

would

corrective

action

to

become

closer to its

for

to

or

Class

He

claims to

First

a form

as

he

Dr Leamer
for

for other groups

for a group that falls behind in one year increases

some unspecified

28

ripple

in compensation

that demonstrates

of

analysis I examine

compensation

sharing

of

compensation

find lagged sharing

and class

the class compensation

of title compensation

within a particular job

in

title

market forces To confirm the existence

other employees in the proposed Technical

a contemporaneous

which compensation
through

structure

claims

sharing

class Second he claims

example

that demonstrates

claims to find contemporaneous
job title causes

variables

third

for

a multiple

with other variables

Based on this analysis
individuals

and class compensation could come from sharing

of title compensation

Correlation

the

for and conclusions to

the rationale

one group

a

other job titles in

of

catch

the following

normal

up

in

year

level relative to

the rest of the class

31

However

regression

statistical

and

both of

Dr Leamers

are entirely

fallacies

the

interpretation of the sign

unfounded

reflection

and

inferences

regarding

significance

reversion

Order at

his theory

36

28

Leamer Supplemental Report

24

footnote

omitted emphasis

12

to

the

of coefficients

variables in his regression for purposes of evaluating

27

are unsupported

by

his

His regression model suffers from two well known

problem and

statistical

sharing

added

mean
on

that

the sharing

improper

make his
and external

In combination

these

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

two

statistical

even

wrong and

his theory is

if

compensation

commits

problem in

reflection

no

a

Leamer

Page16

35

of

does

the results that he

will obtain

effect of one individual’s compensation

on

the

and no impact of changes in average compensation for one job

ie no

for other jobs

Dr Leamer Ignores

Dr Leamer

32

there is

of other employees

on average compensation

A

Dr

virtually guarantee that

fallacies

Filed06 21 13

Document440

the

Reflection

long recognized

concluding

sharing

Problem

error of statistical

that the change

inference

He

ignores

average class compensation

in

the

causes the

coldcall
average compensation
obtain

same

the

regression

in compensation

increases

The

tend
If

scores

test

be a positive

to

will

show

two

Dr

shared

classmates

or transmitted

better

to

tell

when she

34

This

is

which

is

the student

to

Dr Leamers

is

an individual

correct

the reflection

changes

compensation

coefficient

it

variable

is

There will

the classmates

is

a

critical

classmates are associated

in

deriving

2

that

both the student

like that estimated

with

of classmates

and

her

by

why

Dr Leamer

the fallacy that

finding

Dr Leamer
is

does not

performs

a student

commits

correlation

such as those

The
between

of the class but

that compensation

from analyses

13

or a

29

merely shows that there

conclusions

test

to distinguish

that the achievements

of one job title and the average compensation

issue

average

such as the quality of the school or teacher

Indeed

one

does better because she is in a class with

A regression

problem and

his contemporaneous

on

because both theories could explain

the cause of that correlation

problem

into

and her classmates

provides no information

student or

factors

classmates

for a given

29
This

to

a

between

the relationship

of the individual

terminology

in classroom with better students

on

not reveal

1 that

family background

coefficient

in

the positive

this result

in

is

of the individuals

However

by common

are influenced

more advantageous
permit one

scores

the performance

Leamers

theories

higher performing classmates
are

would expect

or a small group of employees

that a higher average score for an individuals

alternative

Dr Leamer

sharing and no propagation of

the reflection problem

test

between

relationship

higher score for the individual
between

no

one employee

illustrate

and the average

one uses a regression like

scores

there were

if

for

As a consequence

for the rest of the proposed class

example to

canonical

individuals

results even

in compensation

related increase

33

of a job title to increase

performed by

it

does

job

Dr Leamer

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

increases

more

normal

hardly surprising

is

outcome

35

by

reflection

Dr

compensation
average

Leamer

problem

that attempt

for the class as a

in this

answer

As

area correlation

pitfall

by

described

between

in

determined by the behavior of group
whether group behavior actually

almost simultaneous movements

when

individuals

in

appear that they are responding
even when

36

such

common

Dr

Compensation

common
factors

illustrate

group

I

the fallacy in

Dr

30
Charles

Leamers

in one job

F Manski

results

Economic

see

Robert

A Moffitt

Press 2001 Section

Policy
3.2.1

sharing and

by

firm with

sum of two

the

it

this can

do not

Analysis

considering

of Social
in

the case

in any other job

Interactions

data

is

Low Level

titles

1

2 job specific

etc One

can

where these jobspecific
is

no

because the

no impact

sharing

jobspecific

factors

one another

influence

or simultaneity
Interventions

by

true

The

of factors

skills

be

as the reflection

many job

economy etc and

in the general

will

outcomes

unjustified

types

a

them30

known

up

catch

simply

is

his reflection in

Moreover

property

jobs In other words there

on compensation

of and

Understanding mean reversion

MIT

they are not

the statistical

solely

reveal

similar to the problem

or reflect

changes in the market for individual

factors are completely independent across

are entirely independent

do not

some common influences

Consider a hypothetical

firm
level success changes

level performance

of compensation

how

about

conclusions

as follows

is

explain

in each job title is determined

factors

when

pioneered

factors are relatively unimportant determinants of individual

Leamers

import of that analysis

movements

to at least

to each other even

Appendix

In the Technical

problem makes

a group are subject

is

a person and

of

who

or group behavior

This reflection problem

mirror Does the mirrorimage cause the persons

case

in the group is itself

on outcomes

behavior

affects individual

in this

behavior cannot by

average behavior
data

case

behavior

individual

membersHence

like those

in this

F Manski

group behavior and individual

behaviors

of individual

of interpreting the

Generally

Charles

Professor

This identification problem arises because mean

the aggregation

interpreting regressions

whether group behavior influenced

the question

groups

individual level outcomes

influences

35

of

all the class wide average

whether group level outcomes

to identify

whole

After

for the constituent

a wellknown

is

Page17

for all other jobs in the class is larger than

even in the absence of sharing

joblevel compensation

the research

itself

the average increase

essentially the average of the outcomes

is

The

offered

when

than normal

Filed06 21 13

Document440

J Econ

14

an important
Equilibria

Simultaneity

14

issue

Perspectives

when

115

evaluating

and Social Interactions

2000

policy

at

128

interventions

in Social

Dynamics

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

37

Now

Dr Leamers

consider

a

substitute

his

variable that measures

true determinants of

compensation
changes

no

estimated

coefficient

and the variance
technical

by

on

the

factors are totally

common

rather than

factors

the

firm The

coefficient

on

variable

independent

reflects

as

is

common

in

the firm has

a result

a proxy

that his
factors

be

will

many

the measure

of

common

for the

and compensation

of a

for the

of the estimate

job specific factors when

of the particular job title

in

changes

compensation

in the

the magnitude

is

variables that are the

factors for all the job titles but

for the firm effectively serves

the change

Leamer does

in compensation

of changes

the variance

Dr

is

The consequence

firm
wide average compensation As

to

factors that affect both compensation

at

jobspecific

his sharing

Appendix

in the Technical

explain

I

and

impact on the change

direct causal

average compensation

in

common

in job title specific

different job titles contributing

the change

for the

this variable will reflect

of the changes

reason that

dominated

jobspecific

because

35

of

for the rest of the class

firm even though by assumption

for all the other jobs at the

particular job

in average compensation

job specific compensation Thus

for those other jobs have

what

In essence

job titles

the change

sharing variable

contemporaneous

Page18

regression which he says demonstrates that there

sharing of compensation adjustmentsbetween
to

Filed06 21 13

Document440

of all other jobs

class wide compensation does not measure

jobspecific
sharing or any

causal

compensation

of a particular job

compensation for other jobs

factors that influence

his results as proof that the change
to

between

relationship

in

job

title

Nevertheless

compensation

is

and

the

Dr Leamer

caused by sharing

interprets

because he

fails

recognize the reflection problem

Dr Leamers

38

the relevance

confusion

about

of external factors

compensation

for the various

was

what he can conclude from
apparent

at this deposition

He

testified

were particularly useful for testing his rigid compensation structure and sharing
this is

exactly

the

wrong type

a shock

of variation

common

the entire tech industry to test his theory that cold calls

shared with
or even

all

that affected

or nearly all Technical

groups of employees
Adobes

31
Deposition

all

of

business

at

as a

Adobe

individual

as

the

tech

fell

whole and

when

there

was

a

theories

bust
But
to

employees would be

common

Dep at 747 17749 16

15

in

a whole and indeed

shock

the local labor market broadly

Leamer

and

31

Class employees The fact that compensation for

Adobe

Edward Leamer June 11 2013

to

to

evidence

that changes

2001 and 2003 during

Adobe between

job titles at

correlation

this

the

many

tech bust

and then rose

when

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

economic

improved does

conditions

employees would ripple out to

many

affect

39

linkages

Furthermore

average
class

cause compensation

Dr Leamers
change

for a job

cause

the ultimate

average

some underlying

makes no sense

of changes

in

factors that

are driven

40

The simple but important

the external

factors is that there

there must

process

be some cause

average and

41

has not identified

and

in average

in the overall
that

problem

must be determined by

His analysis cannot reveal

whether

firm
specific factors

to be

as a

or

implication

must be omitted

that initiates

of

Dr Leamers

factors in

claims

If

we

accept

the deviations
in overall

the compensation

of internal and

model

Leamers

his estimated

from his somewhat

be no

or there can

model

sharing
rigid

then

compensation

average compensation which then are

structure

it is

Dr

confounding

Once

pure

faith

one admits that such unmeasured
to

claim

as

Dr Leamer

does

that they

common

Dr Leamers

Dr Leamer

appearance

race

Horse

Race

Is

Uninformative

does not completely ignore the fact that

of sharing

simply reflects
horse

if

of the class cannot be

reflection

components

its

change

of the jobs that comprise

error is at the heart of the

factors exist but that they are unidentified

B

even when

external

between

none actually

factors that are

the

exists To

common

across

sharing effects that underlie

Leamer

Dep

at

571 25 573 3

and

597 21598 2

16

common
test

factors can generate

whether his

job titles

his theory

they were the cause of his results would refute his theory

32

of

marketplace

of the type that he

propagated throughout

are not

groups even

because the change

which one might define

and thus leads to the changes

structure

of those

in average compensation

in average compensation

Dr Leamer

instead

adjustment

that directly

of his average compensation

joblevel compensation

these underlying factors are internal

external

Changes

logic both the overall

by

Shocks

internal factors that cause changes

variables as

In a sense this conceptual

matter of economic

35

on one group

for others

of compensation

correlation

in

of

directly

force that operates

changes

characterization

determined by the changes

is

a

that

Page19

at all

lagged compensation
compensation

show

not

groups would be reflected

no

there were

Filed06 21 13

Document440

32

he claims

and

Based on

sharing

the

effect

to have

run a

external factors that if

this

analysis which he

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

by

implements

t he

Dr Leamers

42

simply reinforce

common

in his case
in

measured

is

flawed

San

common

external

factors are added to the

employment and

Jose

with the

factors

rest

on

firm

common

In addition the estimated

43

one quarter

the

If

impact of the

bias in the estimated

a

an analyst constructed

education and an individuals

that education

in econometrics

unmeasured

known

common

only a portion

of the

the coefficient

of the true impact

Appendix

on

the

of the external
will

For example

sharing

effect

factors that are included

common

that including

Dr

of

The

in

the

in

a

from 0.86

to

the regression

model

much

as an

endogeneity

variable

will bias coefficients

Leamer Supplemental Report

external

factors

which income was
on education

by

problem

e one

i

on both

17

once

a function

regression

which arises

maybe most

that is correlated

the endogenous

by

of

the

model suffers from what

when some

and dependent

of

income

to the individuals

this lagged effect rather than

Dr Leamers

65

is

in the regression will

lagged income and therefore part

will be captured

an endogenous

33

in

education contributes

factors drive both the independent

here lagged income

Leamers

classic example can be seen in the economics

regression

education variable itself At a technical level

known

that capture

adding factors that account for 50 percent

effect

also increases

on income

the effect of education

is

revenue

lagged income the coefficient

understate perhaps dramatically how
is

show that when measured common

factors reduces the estimated

again a well known problem in econometrics

The problem

33

of its true size

This downward

of education

I

for this is in the

Appendix

that I develop in the Technical

only

forces

His results

firm
wide average compensation change

only slightly the technical explanation

coefficient

relatively large fraction of the

model

only a small fraction

factors will reflect

decline

is

in general

being unmeasured are included

while the estimated

0.75

or the external market

by showing what happens when

this

I illustrate

factors

model

sharing variables

that the internal sharing

just like his methodology

Appendix

In the Technical

some measured

variance

race

indicates

than either revenue sharing

detectable

horse

above

analysis reported

35

of

his errors of interpretation rather than providing informationabout the

underlying data

factors

regression

more

effects are generally

Page20

external factors in the same regression as the two

including

he concludes that

Filed06 21 13

Document440

variables

of the

It

is

same
well

with the omitted factors

variable

in

this case

the

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

variable and on the other variables included

sharing

Filed06 21 13

Document440

in the regression

and that controlling for some of these omitted factors does not solve

44

The consequence

supports

Dr Leamers

that

is

somewhat rigid compensation

the

uninformative
because the

horse race between

His

properties

statistical

would

even when

survive

even when

there is

C

Dr Leamer Does
to the

45

Dr Leamer’s

as the

regression

35

The

large bonus

are

that

such as the tendency for athletes

34

bad

If

year one

Endogeneity

causes

H Greene

Econometric

Econometric

Models

35

See

he

He

eg

suspect

that

is

also notes

of this

one

the ordinary

mean

the

the data

any year

is

of the years are

least squares

good

to

ie

to

another

Old Fallacies

phenomenon in

the

Ever

Die

most common

question

is

30

biased

J Econ

fallacy

in

what gave regression

18

data

the

perform extremely well

may

who

receives

a

was

a

an

average

of a salesman

can be low

it

year

smaller bonus

be above

third are

bad

assume

average or

average and

the rest

there are three equally

and inconsistent

See also Robert

Forecasts Fourth Edition Chapter

is

still

known

Reversion to the

year to receive

125,000 then

be

a

and ignores

the expected compensation

and the salesman earns

fallacy

one

the salesmans compensation

12

Do

in

125,000 based on whether

or high

third

who

is

the average athlete in the following

although one that

phenomenon

and

analyst examines

the tendency of an individual

estimator

and Economic

the

reflects

Analysis Sixth Edition Chapter

that the regression
that

In

good

Milton Friedman

s

it

more like

in the following year

100,000

good year Assume

when an

to

some extent temporary

at least to

or other form of compensation

on commission

75,000 medium

are

important

Compensation

regress or revert to the mean of the distribution

A simple illustration
paid

was

that generates

of

reversion

regression fallacy arises

many phenomena

or other compensation

is

external variables he

the

the underlying process

fallacy arises from

statistical

With employee compensation data

who

external variables was fixed

result that internal sharing

that his

or extremely poorly in one year to perform

46

his theory relies are

Not Take Into Account the Tendency

to shocks

tendency of such data to

exceptionally

problem

Mean

second

fallacy

series that is subject

describes

sharing and

34

no sharing

Revert

mean

and

does not represent

it

on which

model predetermine that

of the

added would not matter substantially

his

35

case education

in this

this

of

horse race that he claims

analysis and the
structure

Page21

S Pindyck

likely

See for example William
and Daniel

L Rubinfeld

12
Literature
the

2129

statistical

analysis

its

1992

analysis

name

Friedman

of economic

says

data

that

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

possible changes

year

one

next year

compensation
50,000
likely

if

for next

in

is

compensation

year one

47

is

year

in

50,000

on

measured

on

the

The

line has slope

persist

analyst that applied

75,000 and a decline

the three outcomes

changes

the potential

no change

is

in year

which

this

two

The

process

is

it

compensation

25,000

therefore

25,000

level of compensation

for

mean

the regression line that

would

the natural

variation

is

result from

reflects the fact that the extra compensation

but instead

from

good year and

revert

will

methodology

a

in

one

year

relative to

25,000 in a bad year

year two to the average of

in

in

not

is

0.36

An

mistakenly conclude from a regression

could

that the firm is actively

Dr Leamers

in year one

from year one to year two

compensation

in

shows

25,000

is

in compensation

with the long run average

Rather

In contrast

25,000 and

to year

two on

catching

terminology when

in

in pay that generates

up

of compensation

the level

year one that the firm is constantly adjusting the salesmans compensation

level in

are equally

from year one to year two on the level of compensation

1.0 which

Dr Leamers

analysis of the change

the normal

in

of

demonstrate expected reversion to the

scenarios

by

exhibit

in compensation

average earned today

expected to

two

axis and the change

the horizontal

the vertical axis

one The

first

are

possibilities

plots the data generated

regressing the change

year

75,000

of

25,000 in

of

025,000 50,0003

25,000

is

from

100,000

level of

9

compensation of

Since by assumption

35

of

125,000 and no change

of

100,000 and a decline

bad

Page22

25,000 and zero and the expected change

zero The

of

compensation

of

is

compensation

an average year the three

Exhibit

measured

to

and next year

year one were a bad year compensation

compensation

in

compensation

year over

the expected change

an expected change

is

year

good

next year is

average

year over

the follow year are

If

year

Filed06 21 13

Document440

to

keep

it

in

line

the salesmans compensation

fact the firmplays

what appear

no

active

to be systematic

to

role at all

adjustments

compensation

36
This

example

is

easily

that the state persists with
probability

321

p

extended

p and shift to being

When

p

to allow

probability
average

13 then we have

some temporary component

to

for persistence

p

e

1

or
the

i

if

times are

in

compensation

bad each with probability

same case

compensation

over time

In particular

if

we assume

good this year they will be good the next year with

discussed

the regression

19

1p2

above
coefficient

then

the regression

no persistence
will be

As long

negative

coefficient

as

p1

will

be

ie there

is

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

48

At

affected

to acknowledge

bonuses

methodology

38

However

make

or

A firm that

sense

compensation
adjusting

even

of the strong

stock

was no sharing

estimated

avoided sharing

39

pressures

catch

generated

all In such an example the sharing

at

result from the firms

words

In other

Of course compensation

Dr Leamers

especially

model

internal

makes no

his theory

gets

it

and

for internal equity

up effect

in

data

would

is

pay

adjustment in base

a form

then

Dr Leamers

when compensation

Dr Leamer

effect that

to use

decision

with

generate

to

sharing The compensation

mean

He

bonuses and stock grants to increase

and bonuses rather than through

grants

would

instead

the

to

37

that

Dr Leamers

why

explains

to

lagged sharing or

reversion

not a problem

for internal equity

does not vindicate

without succumbing

individuals

employees compensation can avoid

all

it

his conclusions sensible but instead

some

for

one time

through

were true

35

of

Plaintiffs claims

respond to the pressures

if this

appear that there was a large

it

49

mean was

in supporting

uses less visible forms of compensation

regression because

there

that firms could

Page23

and stock grants which are less visible and so might not be as likely

concerns

make

claimed that reversion to the

interpretation of his analysis or its relevance

appeared

equity

Dr Leamer

his deposition

Filed06 21 13

Document440

adjusted

even

if

claims he has

of compensation

that

completely backwards

bonuses and stock grants has transitory components

incentivebased
for reasons

unrelated

pay40 that

subject

based on a measure

is

or an individuals

internal equity

to

or groups

many random

to

Firms use bonuses and stock grants to provide

of performance

to firm profits

contribution

and

factors

strongly in subsequent years

41

is

or revenues

performance

exceptional

This

such as individual

reflected

or group performance

But

human performance

often will not recur

in the salesman example I gave

is

or recur as

above

In that

onetime
37

38

39

Leamer

Dep

at

634 3635 6

Leamer

Dep

at

690 5691 22

Dr Leamers
stock

results
40

41

Susan

E Jackson

At his deposition

this

are

regression

and bonuses

may be caused by

randomness

in

many

factors
a

Managing

Dr Leamer

compensation
pay

is

that determine

coin

it

undercompensation

estimates

Therefore even

the types of

al

et

When

is incorrect

like flipping
or

conduct

grants

compensation

based

Dr Leamer

that

Human Resources

stated that he

that

believed

create regression

on performance

performance

based

one were to accept

if

Eleventh

that there
to the

beyond the

skill

to

performance

and thus

pay

which

includes

regression

those

would

not be

11

measurement

Leamer Dep

at

random elements

level of the individual

error or

642 12 643 10

of

simply means there are many factors other than the measurable

group that contribute

conduct

admits might not be shared

Edition Chapter

mean

there will be

on total compensation

the results of his

However

pay due to the fact that there

Of course
productivity

this is not

random

of the individual

and that such factors will vary over time For example

20

the

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

case we
in

pay

50

mean absent any concerns over

will observe reversion to the

Thus

Dr Leamers

conclusion

which corrective
of the data

action

because he

is

data is generated

the lagged sharing

company

the

at

of

35

internal equity any rigidity

by a

measures

variable

42

taken

fails

Page24

the firm other than to pay for performance

Defendants

that

on

and that the coefficient

relationship

by

and any conscious action

structure

Filed06 21 13

Document440

is

unjustified

to take into account the empirical

It

the extent

a

reflects

sharing

causal

to

misinterpretation

regularity of reversion

to the

mean
51

rely heavily

Plaintiffs

somewhat

year43

compensation

rigid

Dr Leamers

cannot explain
But

claim

their

well established
namely

on

this

lagged sharing
claims

structure

finding

a very simple

in the labor and econometrics

that reversion

mean

the

to

is

literature44

or trying to equalize

but overlooked

compensation
infer

a

causal

by lower values and low

that high values of a time series are followed

and

sharing

their

Motion that
in

I

a subsequent

for this finding one that is

explanation

simply rely on the mistaken belief that one can

Plaintiffs

they claim in

by

Dr

expected in job level compensation data

sharing increases

because firms are

In particular

their

gains for some are shared with others

that

there is

is false

term as evidence for

Leamer

This

is

not

changes across firm

relationship

values

from

the fact

are followed

by

higher values

52
a

Thus

somewhat

Dr Leamer

rigid compensation

something very different
and this

batting

42

volatility

averages

between

skill

In

Re

of individual

players

Employee

8 2013

August

Chang Hwan Kim and

Measurement

Errors

Solon New Evidence
Economy

54

data

mean

on compensation growth by

long run

title

in compensation

volatility

says

across

jobs

mean

and even teams exhibit strong reversion
see for example

imperfect

in the data with evidence of

to the

Nate Silver

mean because

the relationship

The Signal and The Noise

2012

26

Antitrust Litigation

Motion

Christopher

Among

substantial

in reversion to the

results

and outcomes is highly

High Tech

Certification

is

reversion to the

The

structure

There

Leamer Supplemental Report

43

44

confuses predictable

Black

at

R Tamborini

and White

on Real Wage

Plaintiffs

Supplemental Motion and Brief in Support of Class

24
Do

Survey

Data Estimate

Male Coworkers Social Forces

Cyclicality

within

Employer Employee

2007

21

Earnings

Inequality

2012 Donggyun

Matches

Scottish

Correctly
Shin and Gary

Journal of Political

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

D

Shows

Empirical Evidence

Filed06 21 13

Document440

that

Dr Leamers

Regression

Page25

35

of

Results do not Reflect

the Causality Required by his Theory to Support Plaintiffs

Claims of Class

Wide Impact

Dr Leamer

53

action from

corrective

at each

structure

forces

measured

change

in

changes

forces

and

of internal equity

He

Defendant

I

misnamed

demonstrate that the

now

use other data where

sharing effect

is

an

or

artifact

MSA

by

outside

demonstrates that the
influences such as

sharing forces
of

market

of external

Jose

San

in the

for a job title within a firm is not driven

market compensation

up

catch

somewhat rigid compensation

a

also claims that the relative unimportance

by information sector employment

compensation

in

sharing and

claims that his regression identified impacts of

Dr Leamers

are not present

to

regression

specification

1

The Same

54
to

The

Causality

False

fallacy of

Dr Leamers

wage and employment

Found

is

inference

data for the overall

is

with Another Compensation Dataset
demonstrated by applying his regression model

US economy

In these data

compensation

cannot

be driven by the force of internal equity combined with a rigid compensation structure within a

firm
2001

I

to

use data on individuals

2010

economy

ACS

45

from the American Community Surveys

to calculate average annual compensation

jobs such as computer

software

for the period

for hundreds of occupations

applications engineers

in the

farmers and ranchers

US
and

occupationlevel
paralegals and legal assistants

compensation

US

46

The

ACS

dedicated

database

is

drawn

population

for

obtained

real

2000

census

ACS

is

an

Dr

from

Series

as the

population

samples containing
46

Like

Dr Leamer

ACS are
more

including

IPUMS USA

worker

than

by

substituting

annual compensation for average

for average firm revenue per

The

of

Use Microdata Series which

Public

data https usa ipumsorgusa

more than

fifty

a project

about

of the

American

high precision

U S Census Bureau

population

use sample consisting

of

of

2000 2011

exclude the given

occupation

372,000

person

records Public

22

of

US average

The
use samples

0.4

ACS datasets
https usa ipums org usa acs shtml

from the calculation

the

and housing characteristics

person records per sample The 2005 onward
records

a project

The Integrated

that has replaced

even larger The 2001 2004 samples each represent approximately

person

is

his

samples of the American

Community Surveys

and from the American

ACS is

public

1,000,000

employee

Thus my regression

employment

sector

Integrated

consists

censuses

1in750

more than 2,800,000

I

US average

information

key source of information

approximately

regression

Leamer claims determine average jobtitle compensation

IPUMS USA

from fifteen federal

from the 2001 onward

GDP per

San Jose

https usa ipumsorgusa action faq
decennial

Dr Leamers

and distributing United States census

to collecting

Use Microdata

Public

US

both the factors that

replicates

45

employment

total

replicate

job title compensation

for

class wide compensation
and

I

compensation

of the

are

full

1

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

sharing and
weaker

up

catch

on

influence

Exhibit

exhibit

shows coefficient

specification

impact

variable

up

catch

56
I

Exhibit

from

size

an analogue

2001 2010

Dr Leamers

this

I

regressions

up

catch

means

I

of

rank

ACS data

in total

estimates

occupations and unrelated

by

much

data

As

the

Dr Leamers

he finds For

the

effect

lagged effect or

only 0.41

overall

his regression

in

using Defendants

average real

and group them into deciles of roughly

ACS

in the data over this

using the
across

ACS

data

the deciles

data than the ones

Dr Leamers

view

of

and catch up between

and employers than there

industries

to

their

from regressions

that there is greater sharing

up than

regression The

US employment

through

in

contemporaneous

the

find that in almost all cases

interpreted

ACS

using the

decile based regressions

effects are stronger using the

Thus

on

US occupations

in the

catch

1.32 compared

Dr Leamers

period

the coefficient

using Defendants data
operates

of

estimate

Dr Leamers

estimate

in terms of their fraction

11 compares

sharing and

to only 0.72 in

a

anything they show a stronger

If

sharing and

of

or have

that are analogous to variables

average coefficient

an analysis where

during the

same

results with those I obtain

variables

directions

has a coefficient

variable

performed

earnings
the

the weighted

In addition as

data

causal

1.09 compared

is

on

estimates

35

of

firmrevenue and external factors

are similar to those he finds in his regression

whole

data as a

Dr Leamers

10 compares

the supposed

in

Page26

variables and the factors that he claims do not affect

average job title compensation

55

Filed06 21 13

Document440

is

how

period

and

those

the estimated

Dr

Leamer

finds

the marketplace

extremely diverse
technical

for

jobs within an

employer

57

These results which use national data for widely disparate jobs across

industries

and firms strongly

suggest

that

Dr

in short that his results likely are spurious
the reflection problem

and reversion to the

Leamers

The

through

58

Dr Leamers

A variety

correlated

common

factors

internal

equity and

level

expect to be there

when

US economy

rigid compensation

influences such as the overall performance

While the findings

that theory is discarded

would cause average compensation

23

what he claims

compensation are senseless viewed

they are not surprising

with average compensation for the

hypothesized

Common

of

economic theory

are not capturing

kinds of

logical interpretation is that they suffer from

mean that we

from running his regression on national occupation

results

all

as

a whole

in one occupation

but

to

be

Dr Leamers

structures are not among those factors

of the

economy

will cause average

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

compensation

for most occupations

no more demonstrates

this

relative to paralegals than

move

to

in a

that compensation

common way

for farmers is

can be concluded

it

Filed06 21 13

Document440

that

Dr

Page27

economy

with the aggregate

up

catching

Leamers

35

of

But

fairness

to preserve

demonstrate

regressions

Catchup

fairness and causation

2 A Regression

from the

to

Defendants data

the

Model that Explains the Change

Difference between

Dr Leamers
59

within

how

mean

easy

to get results

Chicago

specification

I

where

I

ignoring

analyst ignores

examine changes

the

a nearby city

a changes

under study

The

first

explanatory variable

12 shows

the results

and the right panel presents
specification

including

just

by

mirrorthose presented
Given

example
to

Dr Leamer

how

the positive

lower Chicagos

The

horse race
for

variables

the

for

is

results

To

Model

catch

up

coefficient

the second

left

from

two

Leamers

eg

city and the city

contemporaneous

catch up effect variable

1 shows

variables

results for Chicago

estimates

Not

from a simple

surprisingly

on both

his regression he

the temperature in

Dr

reference city

panel presents

variable implies

the conclusions

eg Chicago

cities

Leamers

estimates

illustrate

variables

the results

are positive

would conclude that

that there is

corrective

Milwaukee when

for

action

yesterdays

warmer than normal

common

in the next

the year as explanatory

The

The

reversion

daily temperature for

the reference

analogous to his

interprets similar results

temperature and increase

is illustrated

is

sharing and

on

Dr

analogous to

Milwaukee

The

between

is

of this analysis

Dr Leamer

effect of adding

months of

results

coefficient

temperature in Chicago

61

variable

two

the temperature of the

in

b prior days temperature difference

the second

on

In keeping with

in daily temperature in one of the

and

Exhibit

Illustrates

problem and

and how wrong

basic statistics I use data

Milwaukee

sharing variable and

reflection

Dr Leamer

by

live and Milwaukee

using as explanatory variables

60

as

Temperatures

using labor market compensation data

like those presented

drawn when an

that can be
cities

are not limited to regressions

is

it

Chicago Temperature

Misleading Conclusions

The misleading conclusions caused by

the

in

Chicago and Milwaukee

factor variables

two columns

and thus running the

Model

2

includes

variables and does not contain

agree with intuition

as can

24

be seen from

Dr Leamertype

only indicator
the

coefficient

variables

sharing or
estimates

catch

on

the

up

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

month

variables temperaturebegins to

indicator

and then begins to

62

rise

the sensible monthly

3 column

coefficients

on

measurement

two conclusions

of the year

reflect

catch

their

on

up

sharing or

catch

sense

up

month

in

and regression

correlation

effects

internal equity

64

is at

In their

He

characterizes

odds with sound

results

reflect

for

why

They claim

demonstrates that

47
In

Re

High Tech

instead

my

that changes

call

would

Plaintiffs

in

a broad

of individual

that

Dr

48
at

a

to

in Chicago

Milwaukee temperature

the

same

pattern of

sharing

to

explain

somewhat

or

Dr

effects

of related time series with

sharing generated
rigid

wage

by concerns about
structure

but his

the explanation

I

provided in

market with highly

individualized

as information

received

Report

the evidence that I provided

Expert Report of Professor Kevin

25

adjustments

through a cold

regression analysis in his Supplemental

24

my

Defendants employees compensation

unsupportable Yet

Antitrust Litigation

and idiosyncratic

of regressions

dispute

employees such

Leamers
is

labor

2012
Motion

come

thus

practice

the data are consistent with

speculation

Employee

properties

that enforce

Motion for Reconsideration

for unique circumstances
48

policies

common

as evidence of

econometric

being determined by competition

call

predictable

his results

and compensation

report47

previous

for

because

based on the lag of temperature in Milwaukee

the daily temperature in Chicago

Leamer confuses wellknown and

inference

and

Conclusion

using other data on related time series that have both

causal

variables

of the year

would

Dr Leamer

effects with

month

2

on temperature Instead

effects

Dr Leamer

variables

the

effects that one would find in national level labor market data a regression analysis
changes

the fall

from Model 1 and

This happens

actual

by what

common

both of which contrary to

Dr Leamers

63

longer

pattern is confounded

temperaturecan be explained by

E

no

sharing and lagged

contemporaneous

month

in every

variables

of the monthly

gone

the explanatory variables

in every

temperature decreases

month

combine

Chicago temperature increases

Milwaukee

that for

I

estimates

to

the

35

of

rapidly through

declines

Instead coefficient

pattern is

would seem

suggest

August

in

fall

Page28

February

Model

In the next

Now

in

Filed06 21 13

Document440

M Murphy

above

November 12

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

my previous

like that in
empirical

findings

compensation

is

but the impact

calling

V

on

Dr Leamers

other employees is limited

IS

Dr Leamer

Technical

not spread to the entire

and indeed expected

results are fully consistent

if

a

reduction

in

structure

way

49

or that there is any

appears

to argue that Plaintiffs have

would permit the boundary

that

66

Dr Leamers

that as

I

located

opinions

all

correlative

defined

the class

technical

qualify as

evidence has not established

and compensation provided

wide impact While

agreements

Dr

Leamer has no

that large portions

What

matters

the proposed Technical

it

is

possible

basis

on which

in determining

correlation

Leamer Supplemental Report
Leamer Supplemental Report

spread across

all

that there

a

evaluated

in their proposed

of

11

26

any causal relationship
with other

would be some

some

forces

other employees in

by

the challenged

for a class as large

of linkage

between

and

diverse

different groups

as

such

or nearly all the groups included in the

mattered for understanding

10

50

or at

to identify the scope of such influence

common impact

Class is not the average extent

if

be

In other

right

to employees

of the proposed class are not unaffected

as job titles but that the linkages

proposed class Even

just

50

about the composition of the proposed class have no merit given

that affect one job title

response to a cold call

from the

in the country

within a company that would cause adjustment of compensation

or to conclude

that there are

relationships

of that proposed class to

jobs that could

demonstrated above his empirical

job titles let alone a class

identify and exclude

to

based on a lack of these positive

class no matter where

calls

way

titles

empirically no basis for including

cold

evidence to suggest

find persuasive

whose compensation might have been disconnected from Defendants somewhat

Dr Leamer
a

do es not

claims that he

Class job

minimum in

49

during a cold call

revealed

and does

employee

in which

ESTABLISH THAT THE PROPOSED TECHNICAL
PROPERLY DEFINED

rigid compensation

between

such as information

factors

Dr Leamers

DR LEAMER DOES NOT

sizeable groups

words

individual

of a broad labor market

35

of

would not have class wide impact

CLASS
65

by

Page29

my conclusion

from disproving

far

are consistent with the existence

of such events

proposed class

cold

report shows that

affected

Filed06 21 13

Document440

whether some kind of

causal

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Filed06 21 13

Document440

groups the average

relationship

existed between

informative

about whether

would have

Page30

to be high for all or nearly all groups in the proposed class

claims correlation

certain

all

35

would not be

level of correlation

those groups belong in the same class Rather the correlation

were informative which

itself

of

it

is

again

if

Dr Leamer

as

not

VI

DR LEAMERS CONDUCT REGRESSION REMAINS UNINFORMATIVE

67

Dr Leamers

68

First the Court noted that

variables besides

employees To

Conduct Regression

in his next

these

common

common

the extent

report

Defendants

models that

I

offered in

conduct effect for

overwhelmed

51

52

53

54

all

the

acknowledged

my original

Defendants
53

data

Defendant

Report

Order fn

requiring

across

the accuracy of the

is

encouraged

to include

do so His argument

to

including

inclusion

of

Defendant

additional

suggestion

specific

leaves

52

at his deposition

report to demonstrate

measured

variables

specific

value

that he wrongly

assumed

a

common
had

he did not comment on the more parsimonious model that

conduct effects

Defendant

includes

In any

unknown what method he

and he claimed that the model that he had critiqued

However

that

that he responded only to one of the

which included fewer explanatory variables but which

also offered

Original

Dr Leamer

any

were feasible to do so given that these factors will

to respond to the Courts

failure

Dr Leamer

Second

of separate

thereby

improve

by

as to whether

for correlations

did not take the opportunity

if it

uninformative

be used to demonstrate that his Conduct Regression has any probative

thinks could

I

Dr Leamer

may

factors all can be taken into account simply

Dr Leamers

69

to control

the need for clustering

obviate
51

it

report is slightly ambiguous

there are other variables that

factors is simply wrong even

differ across

event

Dr Leamers

revenue should have been included

Conduct Regression and
them

suffers from errors that render

specific

54

My second

model Appendix 11

conduct measures

by

measurement

still permitted

interacting

of

my

the conduct

15

Leamer

Dep

at

770 25 771 13

Leamer

Dep

at

770 19 23

When

your

asked
reply

Leamer

Dep

he recalled

if

declaration
at

any reason

Dr

why you

Leamer responded

didn’t offer a criticism of that

Presumably

771 613

27

because

I

didn’t

second approach by
have comments

to

Dr Murphy

make

about

it

in

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

variable

with each defendant

I

Document440

reduced the number of explanatory

interactions

with age and hiring rate added very

the estimated

did not

comment

undercompensation

on

showed

effects

little

that

Dr

Leamers Table
negative

Leamer had no

1 and 2

correlations

basis to

with the estimates

a

variables

by

common

the regression

between

I

of

indicating

35

not including

explained the

My

the sign of

that employees

were overcompensated

at

low

certain Defendants

Adobe

This

Dr

impact across Defendants
that there are

on

results

in the size and even

Report which show

in average total compensation

common

to

but instead

assume

in his Supplemental

one cannot simply assume

power

large variation

Lucasfilm and Pixar were not undercompensated
indicates

Page31

and conduct and hiring rate because as

between

Dr Leamer

conduct and

age

interactions

which

Filed06 21 13

or even

also

show

that

impact across Defendants

Kevin

M Murphy

June

28

21

2013

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Filed06 21 13

Document440

Page32

35

of

TECHNICAL APPENDIX MODELLING THE REFLECTION PROBLEM
1

model

In order to mathematically

analysis and thereby

why

illustrate

the reflection problem

his conclusions

in the context

are unjustified

with J jobs each of which has an equal number of employees

1 common

determined by two types of factors
general

market for individual

sum of
Thus

two

these

where

At

wjt

factors

I

of job

j

I

level performance

factors

by

in each job is

in

changes

the

in

for each job is determined

A and

firm

the job specific

factors

the

by
by

the

e

given by

is

ejt

of the

common

factors in year

t

and

ejt

reflects

job specific

factors

year

assume

and thus there

t wjt

in year

group

Leamers

a hypothetical

Compensation

that compensation

common

consider

Dr

firm
level success changes

factors

factors

assume

I

denote the

At reflects the influence

for job j in that

2

etc

skills

compensation

1

2 job specific

economy etc and

I

of

job specific

that the

no

is

factors are independent

sharing Transforming equation

of

uncorrelated

with one another

1 into year over year changes

yields for

job j

2

w

w
jt

jt

The change

w

A

A

1

t

t

e

1

w

jt

A

1

jt

t

A

t

this

1

Now

the researcher

claims

4

1

jt

w

with the change
compensation

it

j

is

given by

1

j

the true process
in

that determines compensation

common

and job specific

analysis analogous to that performed

a regression

wants to use these data to understand whether there

The type

w

it

i

of changes

the contributions

consider

e

e

1

2 and 3 describe

model namely

4

for jobs other than job

J

Equations

1

jt

in average compensation

3
3

e
jt

jt

of regression

1

in

w

model

jt

compensation

w

jt

specified

1

Dr Leamer

modeled to be

Dr Leamer

sharing of

in which

the type he

is

by

the changes

29

in

explained

in

factors

jt

for one job

of all other jobs rather than

by

is

by

changes

by the

change

common and job specific

in
factors

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

the data

that generate

change

in

compensation

the average

show

then is straight forward to

It

Filed06 21 13

Document440

in

of

35

on

that the regression coefficient

4 will be given

equation

Page33

the

by

2

5

A

1

2

2

A

e

1

J

where

is

2A

changes

5

in

job specific

the

5 has

Equation

this

of the changes

the variance

common

in the

growth

case average compensation

is

that when

factors because

out The denominator

in equation

class wide average compensation while the variance

2

5 shows

variables because

of

if

that the importance

the contribution

25 jobs

there are

25 1

24

outcome

number

the variance

is

in

in

of jobs

job level

the idiosyncratic

5

of changes

a large

variable

of the change

job level compensation

in

is

e

Equation

example

of the

2

A

the variance

is

the average

by averaging over

obtained

common

the resulting average largely will reflect

6

e

factors

the important implication

factors will tend to average

2

and

factors

be picked up by

and

job specific

of

factors that affect
to

by an

even

variable

if

in the class wide

factors is amplified

by

factors is reduced

then the contribution

attributed

change

compensation

common

This means that the change

common

proxy for the

of

job specific

of

1 J1 1

factors is reduced

in average compensation

firm
wide compensation
analyst using

the factor

a factor

variable effectively

common

These

Dr Leamers

by

approach

they are a small part of what drives

For

serves

a

factors will

the average

joblevel

compensation

6

This proxy effect can be

factors account for only
the firm

of variance

factors is equal to

5 implies

equation

Thus

fraction

percent

of

in

joblevel

wage

that

change

2A

2A

we would

variable

and

even though by construction

changes
individual

in

compensation
job have

Dr Leamers

no

and there

effect

methodology

e

and there are 25 equally sized jobs

variation

compensation

which

changes accounted

common
is

no

that

2A

e

of

factors account for only

on compensation

at

all

e changes

i

in other jobs

11 424
20

percent

by

the

these conditions

0.86 on the

of overall

in compensation

by construction

that the compensation

30

Under

for

in

job level and average compensation

between

sharing

would conclude

4

2

implies

expect a regression coefficient
a correlation

example where common

a simple

considering

job level

2

common

average

The

20

by

illustrated

structure

for

an

an analyst using
displays

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

astounding

correlation

purposes of evaluating

shared

is

reason

7

Dr Leamer

the influence

of

common

R

1

R

is

a

1

on

w

w

hand

A

jt

Now

J

a

1

it

the

result

i

assume

j

factors

factors

Then

I

on

the

in

less than

50

percent

common

and

the

common

of the

factor effect

the regression without
factors in the

to

common

greatly

of 0.83

understate

components
of the

versus 0.86 without controls

variable equal to only about one sixth of its actual

size

7 and Estimated Coefficient on Common Factors

now

denote everything
of each other

e

1

versus 0.86

of its true size causing the researcher

sharing coefficient

in a

1
J

of the

For example adding factors that explain 20 percent

common

A
t

common

one half

coefficient

jt

w

However

sharing theory

becomes

of 0.75

regression coefficient

side is independent

1

that his results reflected

some measured common

of the

variable

e

t

jt

there are

the regression that explain

to

factors that explain

For simplicity of notation
the right

change

with his

raise

R2 of the variance

theory

1

of Equation

Derivation

could be harmed by

some jobs

Importantly the estimated

would

and a coefficient

and thus no

2

even smaller changes
factors

sharing

e

implies

Adding

for

2

A

variable

influence

common

fraction

would be only one fourth

regression

generates

this

the firmpossibly

at

35

A

one adds variables

R2 0.50

employees

wrong Assume that

J

the control

its

2

2

2

7

ie

or even

the average compensation

1

If

all

of

average compensation

in

of the fact that there is zero actual

by running a horse

factors

that these variables capture

8

class of

of the change

percent

Page34

and most egregiously

importantly

claims that he was able to reject an alternative

shows why he

on

spite

some individuals

that affect

coefficient

claims that 86

Plaintiffs

an entire putative

actions

my model

somewhat rigid and most

is

This would be true in

why

Filed06 21 13

Document440

it

i

j

that

31

in

changes

Consider also that everything

on

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Xt

At

Regress

u

jt

w

w

X to

on

jt

u
These are

get residuals

e
t

jt

1

e

t

it

J

Now

orthogonal to

variable

and

wjt

u

jt

Filed06 21 13

ut

X is observed

w

Document440

run

1

OLS

i

j

to get

2
u

1

2
u

By

J

2

1

e

definition

21 R2

2
u

A

This yields

2
A
2

A

R

1

1

R

2

1

2

J

To

w

get the coefficient

w

jt

jt

1

2
e

1

on

X we

X

u

t

regress

e

e

t

jt

it

J

on

1

i

j

X

This gives a coefficient

of

1

versus the true coefficient

32

of

1

Page35

of

35

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page1

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page2

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page3

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page4

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page5

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page6

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page7

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page8

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Filed06 21 13

Page9

of

21

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page10

of

21

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page11

of

21

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page12

of

21

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Exhibit
There Are Large Differences

in

Filed0621 13

Page13

of

21

4

Compensation Changes Between the Employees

with the Lowest Changes and Those with the Highest

Percent Deviation from Mean Compensation Change
Employer

Bottom

Decile

Bottom

Quartile

Top

Quartile

Top Decile

29

Intel
Intuit

19

29

44
11
16

47
11
17

45

Google

19

72
17
24

Adobe

25

25

78
19
26
10
42

9

Lucasfilm
Pixar

6

5

Notes

1 Data

shown are percent deviations from the average

tenure gender and job

change

for

the employer and year after adjusting for

title

2 Percent deviations shown are averages within each decile or quartile
3 Analysis is based on 2006 2011 data for Lucasfilm and 2001 2011 data for other defendants
4 Deciles and quartiles are based on the share of employee years at each defendant
Source

Dr Leamer’s

backup data and materials

age

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page14

of

21

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Exhibit
There Are Large Differences

in

Filed0621 13

Page15

of

21

6

the Changes in Average Compensation Between

Jobs with the Lowest

Changes and Those with the Highest

Percent Deviation from Mean Change in Job Average
Employer

Bottom

Decile

Bottom

Quartile

Top

Top Decile

Quartile

Adobe

15

9

10

16

Google

29

19

16

29

13

14
13
23

6

Intel

14
14
27

Intuit

Lucasfilm
Pixar

5
8
8

4
8
9

14

7

Notes

1 Data

shown are percent deviations from the

and year

after

adjusting for

mean change

age tenure gender and

weighted by employees

all

Dr Leamer’s

backup data and materials

job averages

job title

2 Percent deviations shown are averages within each decile or quartile
3 Analysis is based on 2006 2011 data for Lucasfilm and 2001 2011 data for
4 Deciles and quartiles are based on the share of employee weighted job years
Source

in

at

other defendants

each defendant

for

the employer

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page16

of

21

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page17

of

21

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page18

of

21

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

1

Exhibit
Dr Leamer’sRegression Model Does Not

A

Panel

Number of Job

Dependent

Filed06 21 13

Sharing or Catch

Panel

Lagged

RD

Title

Contemporaneous
Dlog

0.72

Lagged

Avg Annual Total

Comp

1

Avg Annual Total Compensation

0.41

Title

Notes
Source

Panel

Per Employee

Information Sector

Coefficient estimates

A

is

shown

based on Leamer

American Community Surveys
Integrated

US Real

Public

GDP

1

Variable

Effect

Log U S

1

1

Avg Annual Wage

are weighted

ACS 2001 2010
of

1 and

2

Occupation

0.20

averages across regressions

Supplemental Report Exhibits

US Department

Real

0.12

Employment

Use Microdata SeriesVersion

GDPC1

1.09

1

1.32

External Forces Variables

Avg Annual Total Compensation

DLog San Jose

Estimate

Variable

U S Average Annual Wage

Occupation

External Forces Variables

Log Firm Revenue

Effect

Log U S Avg Annual Wage

1

ACS

Average Annual Wage

Coefficient

Variable

Average Annual Total Compensation

Data

465

Estimate

Variable

Effect

Log

Effect

US Economy Wide

Variable

DLog Occupation

Coefficient

Up between Jobs

U S Occupations

DLog Title Average Annual Total Compensation

RD

Leamer Model Using

Dependent

Variable

DLog

B

Number of

889

Titles

Contemporaneous

21

of

10

Establish

Leamer Model Using Defendants Data

Page19

DLog U S

for all job titles

Panel

B

is

Machine

readable

Commerce Bureau

of

Worker

Avg Annual Wage

Total

1

1

0.14

Employment

0.03

based on data from the following public sources

database Minneapolis

Economic

per

or occupations

Steven Ruggles J Trent Alexander Katie Genadek

5.0

GDP

Analysis

Ronald Goeken Matthew

University of

US Total Employment

Minnesota 2010

LNU02000000

B Schroeder

Matthew Sobek

httpsusa ipumsorg

U S Department

of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

Filed06 21 13

1

Page20

of

21

Exhibit 11
Dr Leamer’s Decile Based Regressions Do Not Establish Sharing or CatchUp between
Panel

A

Leamer Model Using Defendants Data

Regression Coefficient
Contemporaneous
Catch

Decile

Sharing

External

Up

Firm

Panel

B

Leamer Model Using

Estimates

Variable

1

Revenue

US Economy Wide

Regression Coefficient
Variable

External

2

Contemporaneous
Catch

Decile

San Jose IT Employment

Sharing

Up

External

Jobs

Data

Estimates

Variable

1

US GDP

External

Variable

0.60

0.37

0.27

0.19

1

1.36

1.54

0.48

0.10

2

0.55

0.28

0.09

0.07

2

0.94

1.12

0.36

0.28

3

0.71

0.40

0.18

0.13

3

0.85

0.85

0.12

0.36

4

0.58

0.20

0.01

0.05

4

1.18

1.74

0.34

0.16

5

0.73

0.24

0.04

0.04

5

0.86

1.35

0.21

0.00

6

0.66

0.36

0.12

0.36

6

0.81

0.62

0.10

0.25

7

0.75

0.33

0.02

0.07

7

0.84

1.16

0.19

0.17

8

0.71

0.36

0.29

0.52

8

1.02

0.91

0.15

0.31

9

0.85

0.47

0.15

0.18

9

1.56

0.37

0.36

0.57

10

1.13

0.04

0.61

0.37

10

0.57

0.92

0.54

0.02

Average

0.73

0.31

0.07

0.12

Average

1.00

1.06

0.04

0.11

Estimates shown
using

in

Panel

US occupation’s

A are

weighted

overall average real

Source Panel A is based on Dr Leamer’s backup
American Community Surveys
Integrated

Public

US Real GDP

Use Microdata

GDPC1

averages across defendants

materials

Panel

for

Leamer Supplemental

B are

defined according to a similar methodology as

Report Figures 9 to

Steven Ruggles J Trent Alexander

Series Version 5.0
of

in

Dr

Leamer’s decile based

analyses

wage and employment

ACS 2001 2010

US Department

Deciles

Machine readable database

Commerce Bureau of Economic

Katie

Genadek

Minneapolis

Analysis

US

12

Total

Panel B

Ronald

University

is

based

on data from the

Goeken Matthew
of

Minnesota

following

B Schroeder

public

Matthew

sources

Sobek

2010 https usaipumsorg

Employment LNU02000000

US Department

of Labor

Bureau

of Labor Statistics

2

US Employment

1

Notes

ACS

Case5 11cv 02509 LHK Document440

1

Filed0621 13

Page21

of

21

Exhibit 12
Dr Leamer’s

Interpretation of His Regression Results

Explained by

Sharing or Catch

Would Imply

that

Up with Milwaukee

Chicago and Milwaukee Daily Temperature Data

Dependent Variable Change in Chicago Temperature

Model 1

Variable

Model 2

Coefficient

Change

in

Milwaukee Temperature

Lagged Difference

in

Temperature

Changes in Chicago Temperature Can be

Temperature and Vice Versa
January 1995 to

May 2013

Dependent Variable Change in Milwaukee Temperature

Model 3

Variable

Model 1

Estimates

Model 2

Coefficient

0.94

0.93

Change

0.48

0.56

Lagged Difference

Milwaukee minus Chicago

in

Chicago Temperature

in

Temperature

Model 3

Estimates

0.94

0.95

0.46

0.54

Chicago minus Milwaukee

January

0.20

0.64

January

0.19

0.64

February

0.27

0.91

February

0.25

0.85

March

0.45

1.51

March

0.34

1.42

April

0.28

1.96

April

0.27

1.86

May

0.37

2.20

May

0.37

2.08

June

0.19

1.76

June

0.26

1.67

July

0.11

1.38

July

0.11

1.32

August

0.17

0.99

August

0.19

0.98

September

0.40

0.77

September

0.38

0.79

October

0.30

0.69

October

0.31

0.70

November

0.43

0.68

November

0.44

0.70

December

0.20

0.55

December

0.18

0.56

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

0.89

0.00

0.89

0.88

0.00

0.89

6,633

6,692

6,633

6,633

6,637

6,633

Constant

RSquared
Number

Source

of Observations

http academic

udayton

edu kissock

http Weather

citylistUS

htm

Constant

R Squared
Number

of Observations

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

2

Filed0621 13

Appendix

A

Page1

of

112

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Dr Leamers

in

individual

example

Does not Show

Evidence

Materials

Dr Leamer

Lack

submitted with his

compensation At paragraph 63

of

of

Variation

earlier

Dr

Filed0621 13

2

Page2

in Individual

Report

Dr

112

Compensation

reports further demonstrate

Leamers Reply

of

the variation

Dr Leamer

Leamers

cites

an

of

Attached as Exhibit

showing compensation and
over

Document440

1

are tables with data as provided

same 28

job titles for these

Intel

in

backup

materials

employees and 4 Apple employees

time
Page

1 provides

2007

to

increases

2011 The columns on

Page

Intel

show the

employees for the year

dollar and percentage

this period and the bottom

base salaries each year and the ranges

them
the total

compensation

2011 The

maximum

compensation

for each of the

columns on the

each employee during

total

this

far

3 provides

2007

to

right

28

show

including

Intel

bonuses and

base salaries

employees for the years 2007 to

the increases

in total

compensation for

period and the bottom rows show the

compensation

Page

Pages

28

employee during

minimum and maximum

2 provides

equity

the far right

in base salary for each

rows show the
between

the base salaries for each of the

each year and the corresponding

the job titles of each of the

28

Intel

minimum and

ranges

employees in each year from

2011

4 6 provide

this

Leamers Reply Report

same

data for the

for the years

4 Apple employees

2008

to

2011

referenced

in

Dr

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Attached as Exhibit

employees changed

2

Document440

are charts

showing

2

Filed0621 13

graphically

over time

2

how

Page3

of

the compensation

112

of these

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

2

Filed0621 13

Exhibit 1

Page4

of

112

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

2

Filed0621 13

Page5

of

112

Base Salary Growth of 28 Similarly Situated Intel Employees

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

2

Filed0621 13

Page6

of

112

Total Compensation Growth of 28 SimilarlySituated Intel Employees

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

2

Filed0621 13

Page7

of

112

Job Progressions of 28 Similarly Situated Intel Employees

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

2

Filed0621 13

Page8

of

112

Base Salary Growth of 4 Similarly
Situated Apple Employees
2008 Apple
Base
Employee

2008

2008

Salary

2009

2010

2011

to

Dollars

Employee 1
Employee 2
Employee 3
Employee 4

Minimum

Maximum
Dollar Range
Dollar Range

Note The

Percentage

Dollar Range

Percentage

is

calculated

as

the difference between

Sources Dr Leamer’s backup data Dr Leamer’s Reply Report at

64

the logs of the

maximum and minimum

2011 Growth
Percent

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document440

Compensation Growth of 4

Total

2

Filed0621 13

Page9

of

112

Similarly
Situated Apple

Employees

2008 Apple
Total Compensation
Employee

2008

2009

2010

2008
2011

to

Dollars

Employee 1
Employee 2
Employee 3
Employee 4

Minimum

Maximum
Dollar Range
Dollar Range

Note The

Percentage

Dollar Range

Percentage

is

calculated

as

the difference between

Sources Dr Leamer’s backup data Dr Leamer’s Reply Report at

64

the logs of the

maximum and minimum

2011 Growth
Percent

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page10

of

112

Job Progressions of 4 Similarly
Situated Apple Employees
2008 Apple
Job
Employee

2008

2009

Employee 1
Employee 2
Employee 3
Employee 4
Sources Dr Leamer’s backup data

Dr Leamer’s

Reply

Report

at

64

Title

and Grade
2010

2011

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Exhibit 2

Page11

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page12

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page13

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page14

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page15

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2001

ADOBE

152

16

2002

ADOBE

121

9

2003

ADOBE

113

3

2004

ADOBE

122

13

2005

ADOBE

188

6

2006

ADOBE

158

14

2007

ADOBE

214

9

2008

ADOBE

219

10

2009

ADOBE

256

2010

ADOBE

244

7
6

2001

ADOBE

155

16

2002

ADOBE

130

5

2003

ADOBE

121

2

2004

ADOBE

127

11

2005

ADOBE

171

7

2006

ADOBE

174

15

2007

ADOBE

204

2008

ADOBE

235

2009

ADOBE

252

2010

ADOBE

262

2005

ADOBE

35

2006

ADOBE

26

2007

ADOBE

33

2008

ADOBE

32

2009

ADOBE

33

2010

ADOBE

33

2001

ADOBE

33

2002

ADOBE

31

62
21
14

2003

ADOBE

27

1

2004

ADOBE

30

16

2005

ADOBE

35

4

2006

ADOBE

39

23

2007

ADOBE

34

3

5

9

5
6

25
22
29
17

7

Minimum

57
30
31
21
22
18
39
48
35
30
66
34
28
19
32
28
36
60
62
48
28
24
49
44
57

7

51
13
23

25th

Percentile

Percentile

41
21
20
13
13
13
27
30
21
23
43
26
22
13
14
15
27
30
25
28
27

7

30
30
57

25

19
11
28

15

1

15

Maximum

13
32
14
37
33
46
38
16
37
33
28
32
23
33
33
55
35
14
32
32
89
71
74

51
57
35
93
64

4

14

9

20
16
25
24

0
1

7
5

14
12

28

19

7
5
1
4
19

3
11

5
5
1
7
18

4
1
0
5

18

0

Percentile

4

1
11

6
8

6

Percentile

11
19

46

5

Median

95th

18
10

17
17
33
33
31

9

75th

3

10

9

4
8

6

15

3

6

12

17
15
24
17

5

10

5

7

7
6

14
20
32

7
15
52
23
12

1

11

16

7
8
6

25

1

1

3

14
15
45
33
47
26
14
72
17
22
11
24
12
35

9

221

59
33
57
48
64
46
35
43
80
258

77
36
47
48
112

82
89

158

179

53

80

157

176

49
23
33
37
59
29

72
52
24
36
50
70
30

8

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page16

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

13
10

2008

ADOBE

40

2009

ADOBE

37

2010

ADOBE

28

2005

ADOBE

25

4
5

2006

ADOBE

25

12

2009

ADOBE

30

6

2010

ADOBE

30

21

2009

ADOBE

25

2010

ADOBE

29

2010

ADOBE

28

2001

ADOBE

34

2002

ADOBE

29

8

2005

ADOBE

32

13

2008

ADOBE

27

2010

ADOBE

29

2001

ADOBE

28

2002

ADOBE

30

2003

ADOBE

39

2004

ADOBE

57

10
16

2005

ADOBE

49

8

2006

ADOBE

52

21

2007

ADOBE

58

8

2008

ADOBE

68

10

2009

ADOBE

65

2

2010

ADOBE

51

2001

ADOBE

25

2004

ADOBE

31

2005

ADOBE

55

2006

ADOBE

58

2007

ADOBE

68

2008

ADOBE

67

2009

ADOBE

64

2

2010

ADOBE

72

33

4

34
30
27

5

24
26

8

34
26

8
8
16
12
10

Minimum

31
11
12
19
10
20
33
53
20
30
60
42
20
27
25
51
40
17
25
16

25th

Percentile

Percentile

28

9

10

9
6

17
16
52
18
28
53
38

6

22
24
50
32
14

4

11

9

6

29
39
35
16
53
14
34
46
15
41
55
23

11
33
19
16
50
13
18

9

13
30
19

1

18

3
1
3
6
9
4
13
28

6
43
23

1
13
10
40
21

2
5
3
7
2
25

75th

Median

95th

Percentile

Percentile

9
4
1

7

1

9

17

12

18

37
25
35
26
25
51
25
68
75
12
29
40
29
57

40
26
48
37

12

3

29

0

38
32
25
12
12
10
28
24
12

9

10

5

16

5

15

7
8
9
33

7
43
46
19
10
26

1

35
20

9

24
18
12
29
15

9

4

1

8

29
46

36
30

40
25
14
12
26
18

2
3
7
2

9
4

14

6

12

9

3

6

7

27

31

37

20

Maximum

6

26
33
59
49
65
32
27
23
54

9

27
57
51
50

105

63
31
79
110

14
30
41
39
58

7
26
46
130

63
104

62
138

57
59
125

28
97
56

1

217
137

43
73

108

56

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page17

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

75th

Median

24
32

9

4

31

19

29

19
14
14
18

2

ADOBE

29

2008

ADOBE

27

15

15

ADOBE

29

4

2001

ADOBE

32

20

2002

ADOBE

26

2001

ADOBE

80

2002

ADOBE

62

2003

ADOBE

53

4

17
29
17
35
15
38
13
25

26

2009

18
31
18
36
15
56
18
31

1
8
6

14

3

7
9

2004

ADOBE

44

15

2005

ADOBE

66

3

2006

ADOBE

59

14

2007

ADOBE

91

4

2008

ADOBE

109

13

2009

ADOBE

158

2010

ADOBE

144

2003

ADOBE

26

2005

ADOBE

35

2006

ADOBE

33

2007

ADOBE

35

2008

ADOBE

38

2009

ADOBE

38

2010

ADOBE

41

2005

ADOBE

31

2006

ADOBE

35

2007

ADOBE

43

2008

ADOBE

37

14
20
15
28
14
20
42
22
16
15
11

2009

ADOBE

32

5

2010

ADOBE

30

24

2005

ADOBE

26

7

2005

ADOBE

28

2008

ADOBE

25

2005

ADOBE

25

2006

ADOBE

2007

8

18
12

1
3

5

8

5

20
12
35
37
38
29
33
23
27
16
35
57
47

18

8

31
33
24
23
15
18
17
11
33
57
33

7
9

6
3

26
27
26
23
18

22
26
18
19

9

12
12

9
2

3

5

23

22

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

40

54

78

1

8

48
40
31
26

51
57
32
16
34

7

3

25

26
11
65
25
40
53
65
67
34
57
44
58

7

29
24

9

7

3

19
10

11
17
15
11
15

10
10

4

2

16

8
1

12

21
12
24
18

2

24

7

1

7

16
27
17

11

7
4
4
2

14
12

11
15
38
20

6
6
4
18

2
5
3

32
12
19
47
17
16
14
13

0

4

11

28

5

3

3

15
11
28
27
29
40
43

5

55
38
23
27

7

11
43
10

0
5

52
15
32
35
38
40
19
31
24
43
76
55
57
131

135
158

78
136

24

41

135

196

58
41
45
15
34
56
16

63
49
53
16
38
59
94

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page18

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2006

ADOBE

27

25

2007

ADOBE

31

9

2008

ADOBE

46

2009

ADOBE

44

2010

ADOBE

42

5
7

2001

ADOBE

28

24

2002

ADOBE

37

2003

ADOBE

44

2004

ADOBE

40

2005

ADOBE

41

2

2006

ADOBE

35

24

2007

ADOBE

48

8

2008

ADOBE

63

11

2009

ADOBE

64

2010

ADOBE

48

9
7

2006

ADOBE

26

28

2007

ADOBE

29

2008

ADOBE

39

2009

ADOBE

39

0
0
1

2010

ADOBE

42

18

2006

ADOBE

26

1

2001

ADOBE

25

2002

ADOBE

31

2003

ADOBE

32

3

2004

ADOBE

39

12

2005

ADOBE

45

3

2006

ADOBE

50

20

2007

ADOBE

52

1

2008

ADOBE

48

8

2009

ADOBE

51

11

2010

ADOBE

49

6

2001

ADOBE

135

18

2002

ADOBE

139

7

4
8

11
10

9
3

Minimum

12
29
27
54
17
69
49
18
15
23

25th

Percentile

Percentile

0

12

13
26
25
13
52
44
11
11
20

9

2

24
41
21
68
13
36
21
48
67
18
50
45
24
20
32
13
24
26
50
54
49
42

10
27
14
14

7

33
21
47
35
16
50
35

9

14
14

1

20
19
10
31
46
27

5

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

23

40
19

47
52
25
41
34

55
54

8

5
4

6
8

8

0

35
22

29
16

12
12
14
10
17
15

19

3
6
7

9
9

1

6

14

20

32
16

4

3

3
0

9

6
7

5

16
11
13

25

15
11
45

18

3
8

8
6
6

5
7
4

36
22

21

6

4

11
22

6

7
5

36

21

8

6

147

7

15
10
11
17

30
67
39
28

18

1
2

74
70

51
33
38
58

11

6

138

44
17
30
37
42
23

18
11
26

0

109

71
67
77

18

14

9

39
35
61
19
74
43

9

139

5
5
8
13

7

116

17

13

2

32
29
26
45
59
42

42
46
16
33
51
28
49
65

114

5

3

3

8

167

8

4

6

102

39
11
143

84
94
233

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page19

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2003

ADOBE

152

1

2004

ADOBE

166

13

2005

ADOBE

175

1

2006

ADOBE

218

14

2007

ADOBE

212

6

2008

ADOBE

220

2009

ADOBE

219

2010

ADOBE

203

9
2

2001

ADOBE

31

21

2003

ADOBE

27

2004

ADOBE

26

2005

ADOBE

39

2006

ADOBE

42

2007

ADOBE

57

2008

ADOBE

67

14
12
11
13

2009

ADOBE

60

8

2010

ADOBE

73

2005

ADOBE

25

2006

ADOBE

31

2007

ADOBE

32

2008

ADOBE

32

2009

ADOBE

30

2001

ADOBE

35

2001

ADOBE

125

2002

ADOBE

112

2003

ADOBE

95

4

2004

ADOBE

83

13

2005

ADOBE

123

6

2006

ADOBE

110

11

2007

ADOBE

96

7

2008

ADOBE

89

12

2009

ADOBE

65

2010

ADOBE

39

8

5
9

31
11

1
7

7

11
14
15
12

8
6

Minimum

61
37
39
56
32
37
71
59
51
51

25th

Percentile

Percentile

28
17
23
12
21
31
15
27
46
21

3

1

23
22
24
35
22
31
16
15
15
24

18
19
19
29
16
22
16
13
11
20

9

9

35
40
25
37
33
27
16
32
37
23
26

35
34
20
24
17
20

8

26
33
18
23

10

3
8
1
4

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

1

5

14

20

21
37
27
47
37
14
40
29

183
122
136

Median

2

5

14

4

25
15

1
7

7
4

15

33

24

3
2
4
1
2

10
10
12

18
16
15
31
20
23

22

17

4

3

6

19

35

12
39
19

18

5
5
3
10

6

5
9
9
3
7

5

3

8

3

108

42
26
64
46
58
42

12

28
21
61
40
44
17
47
69
31
16
33
33

7

2

5

9

13

23
24

13
17
10

10
21

2
11

1

7
8
0
0

14

17

12

3
0

5
6
8
9
5

78
97
80
83
48

7

4
3
9

23
16
21
18

45
14
38
37
38
37

13
13

27
30

2

8

6

144
111

31
19
36

4
33

9
53
58
25
52
45
49
70
13
53
32

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page20

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page21

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page22

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page23

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page24

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page25

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page26

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page27

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page28

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page29

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page30

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page31

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page32

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page33

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page34

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page35

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

25th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

9
3

0
4

4

7

53
50
21
33

41
43

12
15
19
10

18
10
13
17

4

7

5

12

17

4

4

3

6

10

22
13
13
39
49
18
26

12

27
43
13
18

15
20
11
11
11

41
11
22
15

14

9

2

3

14

16

2
3

7
2

23
13

12

15

20

7
9
1
2
0
9
8
4
3
1
7

1

3

13

17

Minimum

2009

INTEL

163

8

2010

INTEL

169

17

2001

INTEL

82

2002

INTEL

93

2003

INTEL

87

2004

INTEL

90

5

2005

INTEL

113

17

2006

INTEL

121

6

2007

INTEL

129

14

2008

INTEL

163

2009

INTEL

163

5
7

2010

INTEL

170

14

2001

INTEL

49

2002

INTEL

50

2003

INTEL

57

2004

INTEL

64

6

2005

INTEL

66

17

2006

INTEL

82

3

2007

INTEL

93

19

2008

INTEL

102

2009

INTEL

99

8
3

2010

INTEL

112

16

8

2002

INTEL

69

1

1

11

2003

INTEL

40

12

2004

INTEL

29

2

13
13
13

2005

INTEL

34

10

2006

INTEL

30

8

2002

INTEL

170

4

2003

INTEL

149

12

2004

INTEL

123

0

2005

INTEL

130

2006

INTEL

100

2007

INTEL

71

4

14
20

2

11
25

10
10
12

5
23

8

1

22

9
1

3

4

4
8

0

4
4

6
3
4

21

15

3
10

5
7
1

1
8
3
3

3

0
2
9

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

11
22

2

20
32
49

3

31
52
86
48

22

36

0

6

139

13

21
11
18

13

11
18

8

4

11
19

5

30
16
27
17
21
26
49
22

17
71
27
49
40
24
52
61
59

26

123

137

5
7

7

9

6

2

13

20

3
9
6

8
9

7

46
15
48
25
18
28
11
23

5

9

16
13

23
23
13
23

5

0

11

16

1

3

9

10

16
16
19

25
24
24

9
8

9
82
54
65
46
27
54
19
30
13
24
25
22
41
26
38
49
33

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page36

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

2008

INTEL

60

2

2009

INTEL

62

12

2010

INTEL

48

8

2002

INTEL

242

7

2003

INTEL

210

11

2004

INTEL

207

2005

INTEL

221

2006

INTEL

229

2007

INTEL

185

2008

INTEL

161

2009

INTEL

158

2010

INTEL

144

2002

INTEL

159

8

2003

INTEL

180

11

2004

INTEL

183

2005

INTEL

177

2006

INTEL

194

7
4

2007

INTEL

176

11

11
19

2008

INTEL

172

2009

INTEL

166

2010

INTEL

170

5
5
7

2002

INTEL

43

8

7
5
6

2003

INTEL

41

11

2004

INTEL

41

43
10
46

2005

INTEL

33

2006

INTEL

49

8
0

2007

INTEL

51

12

2008

INTEL

71

2009

INTEL

64

2010

INTEL

66

2004

INTEL

75

2005

INTEL

103

2006

INTEL

76

4

7
5
9
4
6
7

3

6

7
4
5

2

9
9

25th

Percentile

Percentile

5

8
1
3

1

1

1
7
4

31

21

13

7

4

27
11
19
10
11

13

7
7
38
23
17

9

5
4
2

5
7
3
1
6
0
1
4

26

16

3
6

2

5

0

6
7
3
1
8
1
1
4

36

14

12

3
6

4

4
3
7

16

1

0

25

22

4
12
11

6

3
6

3

1

19

16

6
6

1
4

7
10

5
4
9
2
0
3
6
3
2

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

2

4

9

10

6

18
10

24
21

9

17

27

5
4
8
4
6
5

11

11
10

7

3

17
20
19
15
18
20

11

17

26

4

5
2

0

7

10

11

15

9
9
9

16
20
21
14
15
16

17

28

7
0

11

13

15
13

19
16
19
19
16
13
12
19
21

6

5

5
5
5

7

12

5

6
4
5

2

8
8

2
1

9
13

8

8

3
3

6

8
7
3
15
16

6
7

8

4
9

Maximum

22
30
23
34
42
32
25
35
27
29
24
30
52
98
19
54
42
28
20
25
31
29
30
11
29
31
21
29
24
20
17
24
26

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page37

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

14

2007

INTEL

34

2004

INTEL

60

2005

INTEL

118

2006

INTEL

132

0
8
7

2007

INTEL

91

10

2008

INTEL

74

0

2009

INTEL

60

10

2010

INTEL

56

9

2004

INTEL

65

2005

INTEL

127

2006

INTEL

124

2007

INTEL

103

2008

INTEL

95

2009

INTEL

77

2010

INTEL

62

2004

INTEL

33

2005

INTEL

45

2006

INTEL

2007

4

9
4
9
3
6
5

Minimum

1
10

6
8
2
9
2
2
13

7
18

4

25th

Percentile

Percentile

2

8
2
3

2

5

2

1

11

0

7

2

2

5

5
6
3

13

57

9
3

14

INTEL

60

10

INTEL

64

2009

INTEL

59

2010

INTEL

63

4
7
6

0

2008

27
14
47

0

2005

INTEL

33

10

2006

INTEL

34

2007

INTEL

25

2009

INTEL

26

2010

INTEL

25

4
9
8
4

5
4
4

2005

INTEL

56

10

2006

INTEL

59

4

2007

INTEL

60

12

2008

INTEL

55

2009

INTEL

57

2010

INTEL

52

4
9
7

11
12

4

11

2
2
4
6
9
0
22

1
3

1
6
6
3
2
9
2
1
2
2
5

5

5
1
2

7
3
3
1
6
2
7
3
6
3
1
6
0
2
3
8
4
1
6
2
2
4
5
1
5
5
3
5
1
8
1
4
4

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

16

20

1

2

25
13
22
21
22

29
21
31
28
27

7
5
8
0
9
4

14
12
12

3

6

12
15

25
24

28
30

7
3
7
4
6
4

11

28
15
19

8
3

12

10

13

34
21
27
15
23
17
13
31
22
21
15
94
17
28
25
26
22
14
39
27
23
14
27
17

4

3

5
6
5
8
2
9
7
4
7
2

11

4
9
5

0

6
12

6

6

9

10

16
16
12
23
16
18
12
16
13
28
22
22
18
10
31
17
23
12
20
16

9
3
6
8
10

7
16

9
14
11

6
13

9
17

7
13
10

9
9

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page38

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

12

2007

INTEL

28

2008

INTEL

36

2009

INTEL

37

2010

INTEL

51

2001

INTEL

34

2001

INTEL

125

2002

INTEL

2003

INTEL

2004

INTEL

75

1

2005

INTEL

77

11

2006

INTEL

41

9

2010

INTEL

26

13

2001

INTEL

126

2002

INTEL

141

5
7

2003

INTEL

141

10

2004

INTEL

147

2005

INTEL

106

2006

INTEL

57

8
7

2007

INTEL

42

12

2008

INTEL

30

2009

INTEL

31

2010

INTEL

32

2001

INTEL

204

2002

INTEL

209

2003

INTEL

215

2004

INTEL

227

3

2005

INTEL

180

11

2006

INTEL

78

6

2007

INTEL

51

14

2008

INTEL

52

2009

INTEL

50

2010

INTEL

43

2001

INTEL

170

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

9
4

1
7
7
2

14
19
23

11
14
19

5

3

9
1
3
4
9
9
9
8
5
5
3
6

20
22

13
13

5
6
7
2
0

14

117

4

93

15

6

2

18

11

2

3
7
9

6

10
12

4
8
8

6

5
7
0
26
35
10
18
10

9
3
11

4
0
44
40
20
31
10

7
5

1
6
4

12

1
3

4

2
1

1

25
37
13
15

1
4

6

3
6

5
1
2

46

28

10

5
5
3
3
7
0
2
4
13
17

7
8
5
1
10

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

13

4
5
7
2

16
10
10
10
10

3
4

7
2

13

20

10

16
16
21

26
17
22
24
44
45
22
57
29
27
35
30
37
18
32
20
35
25
34
12
24
50
59
64
98
46
43
30
28
15
24
31
59

9
7

1

20
16
15
21
27
26
14
29
22
24
32
28
18

10

16

23

3

2

8

11

11
11
16

1

7

10

7
6

4

1

6

9

0

21
19
25
12
21
21
22

10
11

18

30

16
11
17

27
22
26
14
18
21
40

2
7
6

4

10

4

13

1
3
2

3
8
6

15

11

6
8
11

4

1

7
11
14

0

8
8

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page39

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

11
13

2002

INTEL

200

2003

INTEL

189

2004

INTEL

182

4

2005

INTEL

93

10

2006

INTEL

46

2

2007

INTEL

31

13

2008

INTEL

34

2009

INTEL

36

2010

INTEL

35

2001

INTEL

83

2002

INTEL

101

2003

INTEL

112

2004

INTEL

117

6

2005

INTEL

44

16

2001

INTEL

46

2002

INTEL

29

2001

INTEL

143

2002

INTEL

128

3

2003

INTEL

95

13

2004

INTEL

80

2

2005

INTEL

156

2006

INTEL

174

2007

INTEL

123

17
16
18

2008

INTEL

103

4

2009

INTEL

125

2010

INTEL

84

19
18

2001

INTEL

702

1

2002

INTEL

683

3

2003

INTEL

622

13

2004

INTEL

559

1

2005

INTEL

681

2006

INTEL

728

2007

INTEL

739

6
6
6

9

12
14

9
9

1

14
11
13

Minimum

64
19
23
11
12

25th

Percentile

Percentile

38

18

14

8
8
6
3

6
1
7

1
9
7
0

6

47
55
30
40

10

75th

Median

11
12

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

3

9

47

17

100

8
7

26
10
19
14
22
15
16
15

24

19
30

5

1

10

14

0

14

6
16
10

2
2
2

6
6
5

40
43
21
17

14
20
10

10
12
16

1

2

9
8

5

1

33
52
11
18

15
21

13
12
15

21

56
58
22
21
15
12

6
1

0

6
9

7
8
8
2

4

7
4

15

19

1

4
1
6

11
12
12

8
2

0

4

20
19

32
27
13
16

14
17

14
12
10

7
9
11

2

10

1

2

3

9
7
4
9
5
7

5
7

1

9
6
1
7
4
1

3

2
6

15
16
18

4
4

7
24
22
23

6
23
24
10

2

12

18

1

5

13
10
11

21
16
19

8
6

54
18
81
16
11
26
17
30
29
31
16
27
30
25
12
26
12
30
26
27

52
49
25
32
21
30
21
40
38
79
14
64
85
82
29
68
45
21
42
34
41
19
35
42
73
35
42
31
43
39
43

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page40

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2

2008

INTEL

722

2009

INTEL

818

2010

INTEL

801

2001

INTEL

666

2002

INTEL

738

5
7

2003

INTEL

815

11

2004

INTEL

839

3

2005

INTEL

958

11

2006

INTEL

898

8

2007

INTEL

839

11

2008

INTEL

859

2009

INTEL

884

2010

INTEL

956

2001

INTEL

760

2002

INTEL

832

5
8

2003

INTEL

913

12

2004

INTEL

945

3

2005

INTEL

1,113

12

2006

INTEL

1,157

6

2007

INTEL

1,233

13

2008

INTEL

1,226

2009

INTEL

1,254

2010

INTEL

1,298

2001

INTEL

612

2002

INTEL

669

2003

INTEL

730

2004

INTEL

776

4

2005

INTEL

851

12

2006

INTEL

889

4

2007

INTEL

925

14

2008

INTEL

965

2009

INTEL

967

2010

INTEL

1,067

16
15

3
8
8

4
8
8

6

11
13

5
6
8

Minimum

11
13

2
38
49
21
19
10
19

7
13

7
8
56
49
24
35
10
25
18
15
15
13
53
58
35
41
21
49
20
24
20
98

25th

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

5
2

2

1

5

11

16
15

21
22

19
22

12
13

8
7

1

17
27
34
15

10

16

25

27
50
46
67
46
87
40
38
43
44
30
41
48
75
45

5

5

11

2
3

1

5
1

0

24
35
12
13

1
5

4

5
1

1

28
41
11
15

0

8

3

7
3

0

7
6
7
6
3
6
0
4
4

1

4

0

7

10

15
12
14

23
20
21
12
18
17
24
10
28

7

10

3
8
7

6
11
11

1

7
7
7
1
9
0
4
4

8
7

11

18

11

17
10
16

15
19

10
10
13

20

5
11

13
14

8
8
7
1

10

1
1
4

8

3

5

12

4
8
7

2

13

5
6
7

2

1

9

105

47
75
69
65
27
39
42
76
69

28
20
25
14
19
19
32
10
31

0

9

125

16

26
18
27
17
19
18

55
83
80
87
41
44
49

8
11
11

0

4

8
17
10
10
11

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page41

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

5

2001

INTEL

355

2002

INTEL

387

2003

INTEL

445

2004

INTEL

459

4

2005

INTEL

464

15

2006

INTEL

524

2

2007

INTEL

566

16

2008

INTEL

612

2009

INTEL

616

2010

INTEL

641

2005

INTEL

31

2005

INTEL

48

2006

INTEL

52

2007

INTEL

45

2008

INTEL

51

2009

INTEL

38

3
9
4
7

2010

INTEL

36

11

2004

INTEL

35

0

2005

INTEL

96

13

2006

INTEL

98

4

2007

INTEL

85

12

2008

INTEL

81

2009

INTEL

68

2010

INTEL

75

4
5
8

2005

INTEL

39

15

2006

INTEL

39

1

2007

INTEL

46

14

2008

INTEL

55

2009

INTEL

51

6
3

2010

INTEL

56

10

2008

INTEL

28

9

2010

INTEL

26

13

2001

INTEL

35

11
15

9
3
11
15
14

3

Minimum

48
50
35
45
32
32
29
25
24
10

5
3
12

25th

Percentile

Percentile

33
42
20
16

2

14

3
6
9

2

2

2

10

4
4
9
3

4
4
3
1

10

10

7
12

5

4

2
8
5
1
5

1

23
17
15
14

19

4
4

1
6
3

3
3

15
20

9
8
8
4
11

4
2
8
5
8
2
6
1
2
3
5
9
0
7
0
2
4
8
3
10

1
5
5

2
5

2
1
4
7
9

24

21

12

4

75th

Median

9

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

0

42
30
34

119

5

12
15

22

4

1

8

13

18

41
27
33
22
17
23
37
37
17
17
14
23
32
19
22
15
24
11
15
22
44
45
23
13
11
29
18
24
27

0

15

8
2

11
12
12

2
9
4
7

5
20
14

8

14
26
19

9
14

8

10

11
17

2

4

13

16

4

10

4
4
6

11

0

15

6
3
6
9

8
15

8
9
10
16

5

18
10

6

11

13
13
15

9

5

95
158

71
101

94
87
61
51
52
48
47
20
18
16
26
35
24
61
32
53
17
17
30
67
52
50
17
11
40
21
36
41

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page42

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2002

INTEL

30

4

2001

INTEL

33

12

2002

INTEL

34

2003

INTEL

30

2004

INTEL

27

8
2

2005

INTEL

34

10

2006

INTEL

34

2007

INTEL

34

3
4

2005

INTEL

32

10

2006

INTEL

29

2

2004

INTEL

27

1

2005

INTEL

38

10

2006

INTEL

45

2

2007

INTEL

44

11

2008

INTEL

40

2009

INTEL

32

2010

INTEL

38

2002

INTEL

25

4

2003

INTEL

33

13

2004

INTEL

31

2001

INTEL

32

2002

INTEL

27

2003

INTEL

31

2004

INTEL

27

2008

INTEL

25

2009

INTEL

25

2002

INTEL

25

2002

INTEL

36

2003

INTEL

36

2004

INTEL

32

2

2003

INTEL

25

15

2004

INTEL

29

1

2001

INTEL

341

7

5
6
7

4
5

11
12

4

5
5

7

17
11

5

Minimum

26
26
24
21
10
12
12
54

8
8

10

1
9
4

25th

Percentile

Percentile

16
26
20
19

8
5
8

54

0

5
9

0

6

5

1
3

5
1
2

19

19

10

6

3

14
24
42

13
23
42

4

0

15

13

9
4

4
3

34
39
19
31
18
31
62

27
38
17
14
17
30
46

13
16
13

6
1
2
4
2
6
2
6
6
2
7
1
0
4
8
8
8
12
16

7
8
2
2
15
32

4
8
8
8
17

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

4

4

11

13

12

10

Median

7

0

9
0
9

17

8

2

8

10

12
14

1

6
0

10

12

2
2

10

5
6
7

7
17

4
14

9
10
10

0
3

21
14
28
44
25
20
13
12
19
10
20
16
17
19

5

1

6

11

19

5
9

0

27
14
12

10
10

15

27

3

1
4

5
3

0
8
9

15
10

22

4

2

10

20
10

6

4
11

2
6

1

5
4

13
14
10

1
5
27
16
46
59
25
36
18
35
39
16
20
26
17
19

9
30
20
61

6
40

7

35
11

14
16
21
41
89
38

100

109

25
67

150

5

54

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page43

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

65
41
60

368

11
30
10
21

3

INTEL

374

2

8

2007

INTEL

380

2008

INTEL

369

19
11

2009

INTEL

344

0

38
29
31
30

2010

INTEL

358

14

5

28
22
17
15

2001

INTEL

119

2002

INTEL

129

2003

INTEL

130

10
36

2004

INTEL

133

9

61
67
50
53

2005

INTEL

143

31

2006

INTEL

133

3

2007

INTEL

144

2008

INTEL

145

2009

INTEL

147

2010

INTEL

143

2003

INTEL

28

2004

INTEL

25

2005

INTEL

26

13
52
12
53

2006

INTEL

33

9

2007

INTEL

31

2008

INTEL

26

2009

INTEL

25

6

2005

INTEL

32

14

2006

INTEL

26

9

2010

INTEL

36

10

2001

INTEL

207

2002

INTEL

201

3
6

2003

INTEL

193

12

2004

INTEL

193

2002

INTEL

341

2003

INTEL

387

2004

INTEL

392

2005

INTEL

2006

5

25
14

4

28
18

2

52
31
50

4

44
58
39
51

4

4

32
27
31
34
11
42
57
12
41
21
18
25

28
17
21
23

0

39
57
15
37
18
14
24

Percentile

Maximum

6

52

30

145

100
345

5

71
59
73
32
15
26
76
58

5

1

22

9

3

5

12

18
11

24
18

1

4

11
22
26
13
13
13

13
14
14
22

17

35

158

4

1

19

9

1

16

23
15

31
11
35
27

13

7

3

11
28

17

13
86
52
84
47
25
27

109

175

3
6

3
9

20
23
18
22
11
11
18
10

0

3
7

49
41
27
31

41
35

13
14

11

8
6

13
19

Percentile

13

2

8

Median

95th

23
13
13
10

0
2
2

2

75th

2

8

86
86
105

97
74
89
77
118
113
259
116
260

78
109

64
67
97
183

6

2

19

19

24

77

113

7

5

33
17

42
30

14

9
9

17
14
17

9
4

4
2

12

18

81
91
40
13
21
22
19
44
15
28

241
239

3

2

6

0

9

97
62
15
47
27
20
80
57
44
13

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page44

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2005

INTEL

269

16

2006

INTEL

208

9

2007

INTEL

181

16

2008

INTEL

139

2009

INTEL

168

2010

INTEL

158

2001

INTEL

411

2002

INTEL

425

6
9

2003

INTEL

468

14

2004

INTEL

462

4

2005

INTEL

545

15

2006

INTEL

450

3

2007

INTEL

394

15

2008

INTEL

399

2009

INTEL

413

2010

INTEL

451

2001

INTEL

521

2002

INTEL

527

2003

INTEL

549

2004

INTEL

553

5

2005

INTEL

645

15

2006

INTEL

564

2

2007

INTEL

534

17

2008

INTEL

532

2009

INTEL

526

2010

INTEL

559

2005

INTEL

82

2006

INTEL

93

4

2007

INTEL

107

18

2008

INTEL

90

2009

INTEL

85

2010

INTEL

95

2005

INTEL

27

3
9
9

5
5
8

6

10
17

8
3
11
24

9
1
13
38

25th

Percentile

Percentile

6

5

10

11
13
18

6

2

7

10

14

Minimum

4
6

6
5

0
1

0
5
5

52
52
32
43
13
27
21
21
17
10
48
59
32
43
26
41
25
23
16
73

23
39

15
15

5

13

2

11

1

7
5

0

28
42
19
15

1

19

9
8
9

2

3
3

32
44
29
20

28
21
21
12

5
7

5
8

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

15

20
12
20

0

31
25
30
13
19
20
23

20

4

1

32

12

18

36
18
30
16
18
19
30
26
40

73
64
70
16
24
26
85
61
91
51
79
87
65
41
33
54
99
73

3
9
8

11

7

9
7
8
1

14

11

14

2

7
13
13

2

8

2
1
4

6
5
6

19
10
10
12

15
19
10

10
11
17

4

9
7
5

5

1

11

16

1

5

12

15

20
14

2
2
8
9
7
11

5
5
9
17

8
2

10
15

0

23

7
14
25

1

6

18
12

26
19

1

6

13
26

17
68

9
7

8

52
36
40
23
15
23
78
60
72
28
17
24
85

169

63
92
115
104

46
46
57
107

77
88
34
26
37
96

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page45

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

7

2006

INTEL

31

2007

INTEL

32

2008

INTEL

27

38
11

2009

INTEL

26

4

2005

INTEL

49

17

2006

INTEL

37

8

2007

INTEL

42

15

2008

INTEL

40

2009

INTEL

42

2010

INTEL

40

2005

INTEL

125

10
17

2006

INTEL

117

8

2007

INTEL

126

16

2008

INTEL

120

2009

INTEL

123

2010

INTEL

119

2004

INTEL

34

6

2005

INTEL

149

14

2006

INTEL

151

5

2007

INTEL

163

18

2008

INTEL

162

2009

INTEL

155

9
2

2010

INTEL

184

13

2001

INTEL

112

1

2001

INTEL

113

2001

INTEL

88

2001

INTEL

33

2005

INTEL

31

18
16

2006

INTEL

30

4

2005

INTEL

59

13

2006

INTEL

68

3

2007

INTEL

71

2008

INTEL

53

5
7

5
6
9

9
3

Minimum

35
16
23
23

25th

Percentile

Percentile

35

8

23
20

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

21
36
21
17
22
14
18

65

82

127

141

9

47
31
27
18
26
12
17
22
55
51
28
16
17
21
16
38
41
59
21
14
28
24

64
54
59
22
27
14
22
24
74
63
49
31
25
44
16
82
68
85
30
34
75
34

5

4

32

52

18
15

13
20

1

9

37
18
37
29
26
20

43
23
89
39
39
49

Median

9

1

17

29

7

9
2

9
2
4
5
2
0
5

5

12
12

6

3

7

11

14

21
11
19

13

8
2
41
12
27
25
24
15

2
2
1

1
3
2

6
3

1

38

2

17
13

7
8

2

5

17
24
26
48

13
22
24
45

2
12

6

7

5

1

10

13

18
20

7

6

9
4

1
2
6
9
1
13

2
2
5
9
8
2
14

5
2
9
7
14
13
21
12

1
5
3
7
2

16

6
6

8

5
6
8

10
14
18
11
20
10
10
12

12

16

10
14

4

16

5

2

19
10

1

11

0

11

3
9
1

13

6

1

9
23
14

6
16

4

9
14

6
18
13

7

9

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page46

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2009

INTEL

52

2010

INTEL

47

5
5

2005

INTEL

32

16

2006

INTEL

36

0

2007

INTEL

37

18

2008

INTEL

49

2009

INTEL

46

2010

INTEL

50

2006

INTEL

26

2006

INTEL

29

9
3
9
8
4

2007

INTEL

29

12

2008

INTEL

30

2009

INTEL

31

2010

INTEL

33

5
8
8

2001

INTEL

35

28

2002

INTEL

28

2003

INTEL

27

2004

INTEL

25

2005

INTEL

35

48
18
40

2006

INTEL

28

4

2001

INTEL

58

25

2002

INTEL

46

1

2003

INTEL

38

25

2004

INTEL

47

5

2005

INTEL

50

2006

INTEL

46

2007

INTEL

64

2008

INTEL

46

2009

INTEL

47

2010

INTEL

46

2001

INTEL

132

2002

INTEL

80

0
0

2003

INTEL

40

13

1

33
15
52

0
28
11

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

5
3

8
4
1

3

20

13

1
17
11

1
1
5
1
8
5
0
16
25
19

1
7
22
69
17
12

2
2
24
13
13
16

5

11

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

4
4

9
6

11

17

1

3

16

22
15

17
14
54
14
50
22
15
17
19
17
23
23
18
18
66
23

22
18
88
68
61
38
20
19
22
33
28
24
23
28
99
38

1
1
7
1
1

9
3
9
7
3

10

11

6

0
3
4
7

30

14
10
13
10
41

22
23

12
28

5

9

34

123

123

89

92

147

91
52
33
42
12

148
102

3
8

2

1
5

7

6

0
1

1

14
20
13
14

9
1

19
23
29
10
17

6

7

14
14

12
14

4

1
2
9
7

75th

4

6
7
7

9
12
14

8

2

6

23
16
18
10
23

25

42
13
30

9

8

28

34

5

3

28

29

2

4

21
19
32

22
18
36

7
25
14
46

124

136

10

62

130

175
132
100

5

3

2

6

20

22

8
7
7
7

25
10

1
1

5
4

14

19

86
13
16
13
24

8

85
68
42
44

82

27
21
31

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page47

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2004

INTEL

56

2

2005

INTEL

84

15

2006

INTEL

59

9

2007

INTEL

28

15

2008

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

233

2002

INTEL

185

1

2003

INTEL

161

10

2004

INTEL

156

1

2005

INTEL

149

10

2006

INTEL

141

7

2007

INTEL

105

14

2008

INTEL

94

1

2009

INTEL

89

2010

INTEL

80

2001

INTEL

256

2002

INTEL

219

7
8

2003

INTEL

204

11

2004

INTEL

199

2

2005

INTEL

184

10

2006

INTEL

174

5

2007

INTEL

131

11

2008

INTEL

123

2009

INTEL

112

2010

INTEL

90

2001

INTEL

259

2002

INTEL

229

7
9

2003

INTEL

181

13

2004

INTEL

189

1

2005

INTEL

193

11

2006

INTEL

194

5

2007

INTEL

182

14

2008

INTEL

162

4

1
0

12
12

3
8
7

Minimum

9
5
5
2
5
27
25
12
13

4
10
13

9
1
2
37
41
24
29

9
8
3
12

5
5
47
43
26
29
19
11

1
15

25th

Percentile

Percentile

8

0

3

3

5

22
16

2
9
1
3

1

5

4
2

2
9
1
7
2
9
7
6
3
4
1
8
2
8
4

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

1

6

14
10
16

22
16
23

22
30
21
27

5
1

3
8
4

26
37
32
30
10
69
28
30
32
32
38
35
23
28
39
50
32
91
41
35
24
41
23
25
29
71
69

0
9

15

8
4

16
12
21

1

11

0

5

4

11

8

17
19

1

10

17

2

1

4
2
2

6
5
4
0
7
0
4
3

9
7

36
37

18
16

12

7
6
6
1
9
0

11

19

3

2

12

16
10
17

28
27
10
12

1
3

1

9

12

0

6

5

6

14
15

1

9
3

15

11

15

3
8
5

9

9
2
3

9
6
13
12

1

2

8

8

27
16
24
22
25
22
28
11
23
29
14

7

23
11
26
17
23
12
20
19
31
13
31
13
26
18
27
13

101

49
41
57
60
30

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page48

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

9
8

2009

INTEL

157

2010

INTEL

169

2001

INTEL

164

2002

INTEL

174

2003

INTEL

142

2004

INTEL

157

3

2005

INTEL

134

14

2006

INTEL

134

2

2007

INTEL

129

11

2008

INTEL

128

2009

INTEL

136

2010

INTEL

137

2001

INTEL

70

2002

INTEL

66

2003

INTEL

63

2004

INTEL

73

7

2005

INTEL

69

18

2006

INTEL

68

0

2007

INTEL

69

14

2008

INTEL

63

2009

INTEL

70

9
3

2010

INTEL

80

11

2001

INTEL

95

2002

INTEL

71

2
2

2003

INTEL

50

13

2004

INTEL

31

2005

INTEL

49

2006

INTEL

51

2001

INTEL

122

2002

INTEL

107

2
3

2003

INTEL

122

12

2004

INTEL

133

2005

INTEL

122

7

12
15

5
6
8
14
11
20

4

10
11

1

8

Minimum

5
19
52
54
28
37

25th

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

1

1

5
5

8
7

12
12

29
41

18
20

12
12
13

5

21
18
41

27
34
57
73
131

9
4

34
13
33
15
21
16
17
20
16
11

23

133

174

8

17

6

1

17
18
15
40

10

0

5
4

4

0

47
56
27
43
11
29
18
16
13

40
39
19
19

1

17
13

6

10

0

3

23
20

13
13

0
7
4
2

5

6
1
2

18
23
10
13

15
17

4

0

9
3

9
9
9
3
9
0
1
4
20
19

9
12

9
5
9
0
2
8

10

7
9
1
3
4
11

9
8
5
3

0

22

5

1

12

17

0

12

5
6
6

14
10
14

6
15

9
10

9

6

2

13

23

3

4

14
10

18
15

10

13

3
3

5
4

13

18

10
11

15
16

4
3

6
3

10

16

2

4

2

7

8

6

9

6

47
32
34
26
17
21
16
11
23
16
21
24
16
15
24

4

9

11

22

62
42
37
46
33
71
46
40
79
16
61
57
49
48
23
26
22
21
28
26
25
28
44
22
32
23
29

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page49

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2006

INTEL

103

7

2007

INTEL

70

13

2008

INTEL

56

2009

INTEL

44

2010

INTEL

43

2001

INTEL

108

2002

INTEL

97

6
5

2003

INTEL

101

12

2004

INTEL

100

2005

INTEL

95

2006

INTEL

93

8
4

2007

INTEL

85

11

2008

INTEL

66

2009

INTEL

54

2010

INTEL

57

2001

INTEL

35

2002

INTEL

38

7
6

2003

INTEL

57

12

2004

INTEL

53

3

2005

INTEL

53

10

2006

INTEL

49

4

2007

INTEL

53

14

2008

INTEL

55

2009

INTEL

50

2010

INTEL

53

2001

INTEL

51

2002

INTEL

65

2003

INTEL

65

2004

INTEL

62

2005

INTEL

80

2006

INTEL

74

2007

INTEL

78

2008

INTEL

62

1
13
12

5

3
6
5

6
5
7

5

21
34
12
18

1

18
11

Minimum

9
1
9
1
6
26
31
15
26

7
15

4
12

7
6
19
38
16
14

2
8
1
9
7
11
54
57
27
57

25th

Percentile

Percentile

4
2

1
8
1
7
4

22
19

15
11

6

6

5

4

2

3
2
3

7
7
3
0
6
0
3
2

18
37

13
14

15

0

6

2

13

0

6

5

5
4

1

22
53

1

53

1

4

33
27
26

30
22
24

75th

Median

4
11

1

11
10
10

6

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

13
18

21
26

4

26
25
13
27
16
26
13
15
14
67

12
31

2

25
28
10
33
37
59
35
44
11
34
20
45
13
18
21
13
37
31
28
32
33
60
32
17
37
69
48

140

162

62
60
79
32

22
71
96
92
34

3

8

18
19

24
28
11
11
26

3

2

11

17

8
4
9
2
5
4

12

8
7
4
1
8
2
0
4

13

17

4

1

16
28
13
15

11
16
21

9

7

4

12

18

5

0

16
12

24
19

13
11

2

5

8
6

1

9
15

6
8
8

2
2

8
2

14

13

16
10
10

7
5
6

7

9

8

19
16
24
11
14
16

6

4

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page50

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

0

2009

INTEL

60

2010

INTEL

68

2005

INTEL

31

2008

INTEL

26

2009

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

148

2002

INTEL

137

3
8

2003

INTEL

104

13

2004

INTEL

96

3

2005

INTEL

147

13

2006

INTEL

82

7

2007

INTEL

52

14

2008

INTEL

46

2009

INTEL

48

5
8

2010

INTEL

41

10

2001

INTEL

203

2002

INTEL

226

2003

INTEL

199

2004

INTEL

176

5

2005

INTEL

250

13

2006

INTEL

171

4

2007

INTEL

146

13

2008

INTEL

123

2009

INTEL

129

2010

INTEL

136

2001

INTEL

123

2002

INTEL

140

2003

INTEL

155

2004

INTEL

138

5

2005

INTEL

174

13

2006

INTEL

167

2

2007

INTEL

161

16

2008

INTEL

149

7

12
31
21
11

5

11
14

5
5
7

5

12
16

Minimum

17
13

5
23
32
50
43
29
36

25th

Percentile

Percentile

14

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

3

6

111

12
17
21
10

15
57
37

17
23
82
54

8
6
8
0
9
0
4
4

8
6

1
1

11

21

13

18
12
18

14
18

10
10
13

2
8

17
27
37
35

21
13
15

3

11

4

48
49
34
20

25
42
15
14

17
10
23
12

95th

10
10
11

2
6
4
5
3
0

6

75th

5

5

3
1

2

3

7

1

8
5

9

0

47
50
34
21

31
40
17
15

5

1

27
24
20

11
11
12

5

8
8
7
2
9
0
0
3

Median

3

6

15

5
7
9

4

1

8
12
16

4

4

20

5

1

11

16

12

15
10
10

1
5
4
6

6

9
0

15
22
11

11
13
16

7
6
5
9
1

5

2

10

14

1

4

14

18
13

8

6

22

7

41
13
29
10
26
22
23
14
19
24
32
10
36

7

26
25
29
16
15
20
39
26
38

6

58
47
53
22

29
88
55
14
77
38
77
12
47
59
24
17
21
31
53
60
102

25
74
62
71
24
28
34
105

58
142

12
78
80
92
39

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page51

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

3

2009

INTEL

143

2010

INTEL

159

2001

INTEL

33

2002

INTEL

38

2003

INTEL

39

2004

INTEL

37

2005

INTEL

37

11
16
14
42
13
28

2006

INTEL

41

7

2007

INTEL

39

2008

INTEL

36

2009

INTEL

42

5

2010

INTEL

44

12

2001

INTEL

46

1

2002

INTEL

36

4

2003

INTEL

28

11

2004

INTEL

26

2005

INTEL

81

2006

INTEL

77

3
4
7

2007

INTEL

36

14

2002

INTEL

25

0

2003

INTEL

35

17

2004

INTEL

33

2005

INTEL

76

2006

INTEL

77

1
6
5

2007

INTEL

77

13

2008

INTEL

61

1

2009

INTEL

61

10

2010

INTEL

48

9

2004

INTEL

25

2005

INTEL

45

2006

INTEL

59

2007

INTEL

71

2008

INTEL

70

37
12

5

7
4
9
3

Minimum

15

25th

Percentile

Percentile

8

2

4

51
70
35
55

42
57
33
55

6

3

37
20
32
34
15
12
27

32
18
23
26
14
11
25

1
8
7
6
3

1
6
5
5
1

13

10

1
10

7
6
0
8
1
3
19

2
14

4
4

4

7
4
4

3

6

0

2

11

1
5

2

3

2
8
27
26
13
15
17
10
19

1
14

5
8
13

6
1
0
1
7
4
9
3
1
1
7
2
5
4
8
3
0
5
1

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

3

7

10
20
19
23

13

7
9

14
20
11
78

22
34
90

40

145

6

1

22

29
10
60
21

5

17
93
87
93
40
33
41
23
13
22
16
17
22
32

110
182

17
128

5

9

18

22

1

5

94
96
65
44
53
62
16
22
16
23
49
35
12
37
14
21
23
31
31
27

32
16

8

2

12

17

2
3

4
2

9
0
3
4

14

0

16

7
7
15
21

5
3

10

12

17

34
13
18
20
28

12
15

27
22

1
9
5

5

7
3
8
2

8
4

2

10
10
12

7

8
6

15
19
18
13

9
8

21
23
28
19

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page52

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25

5
5
9
4
4

6
5
2
5
4

INTEL

26

11

2002

INTEL

37

8

2003

INTEL

54

11

2004

INTEL

55

2005

INTEL

49

2001

INTEL

32

2001

INTEL

56

2002

INTEL

52

3

50
30
25
34
10
12
25
26

2003

INTEL

32

13

2004

INTEL

29

4

2005

INTEL

30

10

2006

INTEL

31

5

2007

INTEL

28

13

2008

INTEL

27

1

2001

INTEL

56

2002

INTEL

56

8
4

2003

INTEL

57

13

2004

INTEL

56

2005

INTEL

53

2006

INTEL

50

2007

INTEL

54

2008

INTEL

54

2009

INTEL

44

2010

INTEL

45

2001

INTEL

34

2002

INTEL

39

5
8

2003

INTEL

37

13

2004

INTEL

40

2009

INTEL

60

2010

INTEL

54

2007

INTEL

28

2008

INTEL

35

2009

INTEL

2001

5

8
0
1

4

9
4
9
4
5
6

2

25th

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

3

5
4
9
4
4

8
9

4
3

2
3
7
1
0

23
29

17
14

14

8

8
4

11

17

11
13
14
12
14
12
10
21

17
18
25
13
16
39
46
27

6

12

3
2
4

8
9
0

10

20

24
18
26
13
25
32
26
26
28

51
46
48
31
31
36
28
28
29

5
3

4

11

7
8

4
7
6
5

6

5

9
8
3
9
9
9
8
4
3
1
7
1

40
29

30
21

15
13

10

4

0

8

14

4

3

8
4
2

8
8
3
0
6
1
1
4

25
47

21
44

10

0

1

12
14

13

16

12

12

8
6

5

8
8
8
0
2

29
11
16
12
18
15
39
11
26

4

0

0
10

13

2

11
17
16

1

9
3
5

5

4

30

17

6
6
2
11
11

5
4

5

1
9
2

11

2

2

9
18

9

19

4

3

8

3

3

10

17

12
14
26

7
2
9
4
5
4

1

7
13

9

9

8
68
19
83
10
32
39
25
21
22
17
42
16
27
40

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page53

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2005

INTEL

27

2006

INTEL

32

9
4

2007

INTEL

27

12

2008

INTEL

31

2009

INTEL

28

2010

INTEL

33

2001

INTEL

77

2002

INTEL

73

2003

INTEL

38

2005

INTEL

37

2006

INTEL

34

2001

INTEL

166

2002

INTEL

152

6
3

2003

INTEL

161

11

2004

INTEL

141

2

2005

INTEL

112

2006

INTEL

81

2007

INTEL

72

12
17
14

2008

INTEL

77

0

2009

INTEL

75

14

2010

INTEL

62

7

2001

INTEL

204

15

2002

INTEL

211

8

2003

INTEL

205

13

2004

INTEL

212

2005

INTEL

222

2006

INTEL

213

2007

INTEL

203

2008

INTEL

194

2

2009

INTEL

188

12

2010

INTEL

186

7

2001

INTEL

187

2002

INTEL

216

4
4
6
6
7
12
16
25

4
12
13
16

6
7

Minimum

2
5
1
7
5
1
3
18

4
0
5

13
11

3
3
0
3
1
5
4
4
11
17

1
17

25th

Percentile

Percentile

0

4

5

6
5

2
2
0
4
0

13

3
1
4

2

0

2

5

5

7
2
2
1
5

2

6
3
3
9
2
2

3

17
36

15
30

2

75th

Median

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

17
17
20
14
15
15
10
19
20
28
37
11

21
40
23
14
17
16
18
23
22
38
41
54
14
30
13
48
47
28
12
26
31
83
47
49
80
48
39
48
12
25
26
10
13

5
3

8
3

13

10

12

16

1
1
4
4
2
8
10
19

4
2
7
0
8
12

9
3
10

5
5
2
8
0
6
9

7
3
6
6
7

12
17
26

6
2

10

1

11
16
14

7
8
7
8
7
10
16
21
30

7
3
13

9

17
23
20

24
31
27
12
24
18
72
41
39
20
35
33
40

2

12

19

8
9
3
12

4
15
17
18

4

10

12
13

6
3

3

3

2

10

11

12

5

5
8
10

5

6
3

20

3

2

6
6
2
9
1
9

9

7

3

0

6

23
17

0
3

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page54

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

7

2003

INTEL

249

2004

INTEL

261

2005

INTEL

287

2006

INTEL

282

7
6

2007

INTEL

302

10

2008

INTEL

319

2009

INTEL

307

2010

INTEL

317

8
5

2007

INTEL

29

13

2008

INTEL

25

2001

INTEL

27

2001

INTEL

81

2002

INTEL

67

2

2003

INTEL

57

14

2004

INTEL

51

2

2005

INTEL

27

15

2001

INTEL

89

2002

INTEL

70

3
3

2003

INTEL

63

12

2004

INTEL

79

4

2005

INTEL

68

10

2006

INTEL

51

5

2007

INTEL

38

11

2008

INTEL

35

2009

INTEL

32

2010

INTEL

25

2
8
7

2001

INTEL

59

10

2002

INTEL

68

6

2003

INTEL

70

13

2004

INTEL

83

3

2005

INTEL

63

14

2006

INTEL

60

6

2007

INTEL

54

11

3
1

4
4
0

Minimum

12
21

5
10

25th

Percentile

Percentile

7
11

1
3

0

4

12

10

3
2
2
3
9

2
2
4

15
24

12
20

2
10

3
8
1
5

2

3

22
27

17
21

4
14

8

Percentile

Maximum

8

10

17

6
5
9
0
8
5

9
8

12

15
18
20

11

14

47
24
32
45
56
18
33
14
60
14
36
40
35
30
12
38
64
37
69
42
28
21
32
14
29
18
48
43
79
20
51
83
32

3

4
1

1

2

5

10

13
10
23
11
21
26
13
27
10
25
19
14
23

6
8
10

5
2

7
5

14

21

1

6

15

22

11

16

6
4

4

2
2

18
13

12

6
6
7
1
8

6

3

12

19

4

1

8

12

17
11
15

36
31
22

14

1

Percentile

42
32

30

10
43
43
22
27

Median

8

1

10

10
12

95th

9
7
9
6
1
6
0
5
4

7
9
4
3

5
4
3
2
7
3
5
4
9
1
6
9
8
9
1

75th

3
2

0

5

0

1

12

1
7

2

5

1

10

13

5

11

1
7
7

3

10

9
15

7

24
13
23

3

9

11
12

15
18
15
14
25

3

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page55

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

3
7
8

2008

INTEL

46

2009

INTEL

40

2010

INTEL

43

2001

INTEL

30

5

2002

INTEL

27

10

2003

INTEL

27

9

2004

INTEL

32

1

2005

INTEL

29

12

2006

INTEL

28

2007

INTEL

25

2005

INTEL

25

2010

INTEL

27

2005

INTEL

38

2004

INTEL

38

2005

INTEL

125

2006

INTEL

94

6
8
5
7
4

2007

INTEL

68

10

2008

INTEL

61

2009

INTEL

116

2010

INTEL

98

2004

INTEL

66

2005

INTEL

144

2006

INTEL

164

2
6
4

2007

INTEL

125

10

2008

INTEL

121

2

2009

INTEL

177

11

2010

INTEL

188

2004

INTEL

27

2005

INTEL

49

2006

INTEL

50

2007

INTEL

57

2008

INTEL

59

5

2009

INTEL

43

11

1

12
13

2

13
10

6
3
7
2
9

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

6

9

10
10

16
17
55

5
5
1

3
4

2

0
3
4

2
6
6

51
40
22
15

44
36
17
12

14
15

11

5
7
9
3
9

13

1
6
4
6
4
2
3
0
3
4
5
5
1
14

0
4
3
11

2
1
2
2
0
4

62

6

1

5

5
6
0
3

3

2
0
6

4

8
3

1

3
0
5

5

9
3

1

2
0
5

6

9

10

8

0

5

19

3

2

10

15

11
12

17
14
11
12

0

4

3
3
1
3
1
7
3

5
9
2
4
1
8

2

2

11

11

14
13

8
12

6
11

7
0
3
0
7
3

8
1
4
2
9

3

2

10

11

11

5
0
3
1
7
3

6
0
5
2
7

10

11

3

3
8
7
10

7
3
6
3
9

2

11

8

28
11
26
12
22
19
13
16
24
16
16
21

5

21
18
10
17
16
20

1
14
13
16
37

6

19

Maximum

13
17
21
68
20
32
41
28
19
22
21
13
16
24
17
19
24

7
24
29
11
18
27
42
24
21
16
17
37
16
23

1

1

14

15

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page56

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

7
0

2010

INTEL

49

2001

INTEL

78

2002

INTEL

60

3

2003

INTEL

45

21

2004

INTEL

53

0

2005

INTEL

84

11

2006

INTEL

62

5

2007

INTEL

39

13

2008

INTEL

41

2

2009

INTEL

27

12

2001

INTEL

148

2002

INTEL

147

2
3

2003

INTEL

147

23

2004

INTEL

129

2005

INTEL

204

2006

INTEL

176

1
9
7

2007

INTEL

100

11

2008

INTEL

106

0

2009

INTEL

93

11

2010

INTEL

75

7

2001

INTEL

60

2002

INTEL

87

2003

INTEL

133

2004

INTEL

154

2005

INTEL

216

2006

INTEL

192

2007

INTEL

178

2008

INTEL

160

2009

INTEL

133

2010

INTEL

126

8
4
8
4
5
6

2005

INTEL

26

10

2006

INTEL

44

3

2007

INTEL

52

10

10
10
22

3

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

3

3

24
22

11
15

1
12

8
13

1

9
1
6

3
6
1

3

18
28

16
16

3
12

5
9
9
10

5

4
8

8
2
5

3

8

6
3

2
0

24
28

21
21

1

5

21

13

7
9
14
12
10

3
3
1
4
5
2

7
1

1

19

12

2

4

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

5
8
7

7

2
3

9
8
2

13
13

15

23

28

7
6
2
7
1
6

1

6

12
11

17
14
20

11

18

6
4

5
1

24

30

33
14
23
18
25
10
21
19
11
39
11
24
22
24

13
68
18
34
20
27
25
26
11
24
46
22
45
32
34
31
32
13
36
22

11
10
18

2
3
1
6
3
6
4

3
3

0
7
4
9
0

10

5

14
15
16

11
10
22

6
3
0
6
0
1
3
6
1
7

4

7
2
8
4
4
5
9
4
9

6

5
16
14
15

9

3

9

15

9

26
21

27

39

11

22
15
17
12
16
16
26
13
18

6
4
1

7

12

7
8
8
16

8
13

5
2
7

9
4
46
40
34
29
26
30
26
19
26
15
19

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page57

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

0
1
3
5

5
1

56

4
5
6

8
3
1

1

26

11

14
24
16
17
15
20
19
16

11
20
10
11
12
11
14
14

2008

INTEL

59

2009

INTEL

53

2010

INTEL

2003

INTEL

2001

INTEL

34

6

2003

INTEL

28

10

2004

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

42

2002

INTEL

35

2001

INTEL

155

2002

INTEL

128

1
1

2003

INTEL

92

13

2004

INTEL

74

2

2005

INTEL

69

13

2006

INTEL

56

9

2007

INTEL

47

14

2008

INTEL

42

2009

INTEL

41

2010

INTEL

41

2001

INTEL

192

2002

INTEL

166

8

2003

INTEL

118

12

2004

INTEL

84

2

2005

INTEL

77

10

2006

INTEL

75

3

2007

INTEL

67

10

2008

INTEL

68

2009

INTEL

62

2010

INTEL

62

2001

INTEL

127

2002

INTEL

123

2003

INTEL

103

2004

INTEL

96

5

2
1

2

14
12
10

3
6
8

8

11
11

5

14

6
8
7
7
10

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

4
4
4

7
7
8

12
10

17

11
13
13
27
10
35

29
39
15
68
58
35

19
18

19
17
26
16
26
13
26
29
26
22
27
29

27

24
26
33
26
36
15
32
33
29
24
29
33
50
16
63
30
31
21
44
25
22
31
40
11
42
12

8

4
1

2
16

2

6
3

8
8
7
2

12

19

0

4

1
1

3
2

7
8
3
8
1
8
2
9
4

39
36

24
19

19
15

13

8
11

17

2

0

9

14

1

6
6
6
1
6
1
3
4

5
2

25
30

15
18

11

0

26
19
23
13
15
21
16

7
9

10

16

24

13

8
9
6
5
2
10

1
8
4
3

6

7

9

3

17

13

2

1

11
11
11

2

3
3
45
45
18
28

9
4
1
5

1

12

6

12

1

11

9

9
2
9
3
6
5

9
4

6
20
15
20

3

7
14

7
8
11

4
1

9
7

5
8

8

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page58

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

Percentile

Percentile

3

2
5
3
3

4
2

7
1
9
0
2
5

11
12
12

28
42

18
17

65

4

42
49
20
37

48

11

INTEL

49

2

3

2007

INTEL

27

15

2008

INTEL

30

2009

INTEL

26

2010

INTEL

30

2001

INTEL

30

1

2002

INTEL

27

16

2001

INTEL

27

0

2001

INTEL

115

2002

INTEL

91

3
3

2003

INTEL

58

10

2004

INTEL

43

2005

INTEL

35

2006

INTEL

35

0
8
1

2007

INTEL

28

12

2008

INTEL

29

0

2009

INTEL

28

12

2010

INTEL

26

6

2001

INTEL

83

2002

INTEL

70

8
4

2003

INTEL

54

10

2004

INTEL

61

2005

INTEL

88

12

2006

INTEL

81

4

2007

INTEL

66

14

2008

INTEL

65

2009

INTEL

63

2010

INTEL

63

2001

INTEL

110

2002

INTEL

101

2003

INTEL

87

2004

INTEL

2005

INTEL

2006

5
7
9

9
5
9

4

3

25th

14

16

7
4
2
8

15

2
9

6
3
8
2

5

18
62
17
23
19

17
40
17
14
17

1
5

1

1
8
6
4

12

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

9
4

18

12

17

27
17
29
25
20
20
12

38
33
34
27
35
26
39
31
78
16
63
28
31
32
14
37
50
83
27
44
40
26

Median

3
6
6

13
10
12

9
7
11
11

6
5

21

4

0

8

14

19
13
22
23
12
28
28
22
12
17
14
25

1

15

7
17
12

4
2
5

8
5
7

14
33

21

10

3
6
4

6
1
0

2

9
10

3

3
8
1
2

3

1

21
26
12
21

19
22

15
11

12

3

10

16

12

6
7

4
5

0

13

5
8

1

6
7

5

1

33

10

8
9
8
4
5
3
0
6
3
7
4

8
8
0

5

9

14

5
1

4

8

12

21

4

8

25

10

15

25

1

3

8

33

14

24
21

1

9
4

6

2

8

14
22

5

8
9
9
32
21
18
19
24
12

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page59

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

7
3
9
2
7
6

2005

INTEL

57

2006

INTEL

64

2007

INTEL

49

2008

INTEL

42

2009

INTEL

40

2010

INTEL

43

2001

INTEL

67

2002

INTEL

63

7
9

2003

INTEL

60

12

2004

INTEL

56

2005

INTEL

46

2006

INTEL

43

6
1

2007

INTEL

46

10

2008

INTEL

47

2009

INTEL

43

2010

INTEL

41

2001

INTEL

29

2002

INTEL

28

10
10

2003

INTEL

28

9

2004

INTEL

25

2010

INTEL

27

2002

INTEL

28

5
5

2003

INTEL

35

13

2004

INTEL

36

2

2005

INTEL

63

14

2006

INTEL

37

8

2007

INTEL

30

10

2008

INTEL

29

1

2009

INTEL

28

13

2001

INTEL

34

2002

INTEL

39

4
1

2003

INTEL

54

11

2004

INTEL

59

3

7
4
6

6

3

Minimum

7

25th

Percentile

Percentile

2
9

5

0

3
0
7
1
2
3

45
48

31
35

16
17

10

4
8
12

6

20

7
9
1
4
6
2
40
32
23
16

4

5
4
5

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

11

9
2

16
15
20
11
17
16
26

18

26

18
21
26
12
21
28
35
16
31

5

10

1

6

10

13
10

6
8

17
14
19
18
14
15

Median

6
2
8
1
7
5
12

6

8
12

5
11

1

9

11

1
4
1

19
29

15
15

13

7

8

4
5

10

13

28

7

11
15
25
29
27
28
21

11

5
8

1

7

14

5

0

10

11

6

2
1
7
3
8
2
6
1
9

16
16

6

3

12
11

23

15

7
5

20
18

95th

7
7
4
4
8
3
1
4

11

5
8
3
7
2
4
2

75th

3
6

3

3

4

3

4

6
3
4

6

4
5

1

3

8

6
4
2

14

13
19

1

5

16

20
10
11

4

9

10

15

8
4

0
2

10

17

30
17
54
24

4

0

6
8
1

6

9
20
15
21
20
17
18
10
21
30
11
11
16
31
30
33
39
26
15
36
41
59
33
15

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page60

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

2
4
3
1
0
4

6
8
9
5
4
4

16
16

12

8
9
8
5
5
7

4
9
2
7
6
0

0
0

11
11
15

123

4

43
39
20
45

39
38
15
27

152

10

INTEL

161

7

6

2007

INTEL

139

11

2008

INTEL

121

4

2009

INTEL

124

10

2010

INTEL

137

9

2001

INTEL

46

2002

INTEL

36

7
6

2003

INTEL

46

11

2004

INTEL

56

6

2005

INTEL

53

11

2006

INTEL

44

4

2007

INTEL

46

13

2008

INTEL

45

2009

INTEL

45

2010

INTEL

61

2008

INTEL

26

2009

INTEL

29

2010

INTEL

35

2005

INTEL

39

2006

INTEL

34

8
5

2007

INTEL

32

11

2008

INTEL

29

1

2005

INTEL

53

2006

INTEL

40

2007

INTEL

31

2008

INTEL

27

2009

INTEL

27

2010

INTEL

30

2001

INTEL

47

2002

INTEL

62

2003

INTEL

98

2004

INTEL

2005

INTEL

2006

5
5
7
5
13
11

13

1
11

1
4
5

0

2
4

4

5

4
4

0
3

50
39
26
17

45
29
21
14

4
14
17
22
12

2

8

5

6
5

2
9
1
2
9
9
0

0

12

10

3

4
1

4
9

1

4

12

5
2
7
0
6
5

75th

12
11
12
11

30
22
16
14
15
16

32
25
17
20
16
18
36
21
83
46
39
20
28
25
27
28
45
59
33

8
10
21

4

1

10

14
11
15

8
7
4

10

9

12

5
5
1
6
1

Maximum

12

8

10

Percentile

5
4

11

5
1
9
1
2
4
1

Percentile

8

15
16
11

95th

8
6

7
14
13

5

2

18

3

9
2

12

11

16

5
7
6
3

12

7
7
2
8
0

7
9
9
11

7
15
19
11

9
14

5

6
8

79
31
31
18
22
16
19
17
18
34
31

4

38
16
44
20
16
16
22
22
28
21
19
28
18

5
45
44
49
24
16
20
25
39
31
25
20
34
26

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page61

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

8

1

0

4

20
14
12

15

7

36
16
18

2009

INTEL

34

2002

INTEL

26

2003

INTEL

29

2004

INTEL

26

4

2005

INTEL

55

11

2006

INTEL

43

5

2007

INTEL

39

12

2008

INTEL

32

2009

INTEL

30

5
6

2010

INTEL

30

10

2005

INTEL

25

2006

INTEL

26

2006

INTEL

25

4

2007

INTEL

51

14

2008

INTEL

62

2009

INTEL

50

7
5

2010

INTEL

60

11

2001

INTEL

69

2002

INTEL

219

2003

INTEL

360

2004

INTEL

2005

INTEL

2006

9

9
2

6
4
2
6
4
1
3
14
28
18
26

3
3

3

4
2

3

3
5

19

5

18

8

9
2

1

15
23

427

6

60
65
43
55

32
53
31
46

485

21

3

INTEL

547

1

6

2007

INTEL

583

2008

INTEL

591

2009

INTEL

583

38
25
37
24

29
18
18
14

2010

INTEL

582

2001

INTEL

37

2002

INTEL

51

2004

INTEL

99

7
6

2005

INTEL

115

31

2006

INTEL

127

4

2007

INTEL

145

22

1

20
10

0

14
12

4

6

59
66
59

33
49
51

5
8
4
0
8
1
4
4
5
4
7
9
4
2
8

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

8

10

18

22

8

10

9
2

1

6

19

11

15

25
17
25
14
13
26
25
11

7

4

5
6
8
8
3

4

14

2

9
8
8
15
14

8
1

3

7

27

119

4

2

14

22

18
70
52
64
29
14
25
15
62
25
92
65
53

10
13
16
19

9
13

5

18
27
12
10
10

8

3

5

13

17
11

24
18

11
23
23

13
18
12

17

9

3

2

18

37
31

3
5

18

25
21
18
23
76
35

8
4

16
12

3

0

4

8

14

37
24

33
16

8

0

17

22

6

2
2

9

4
34

8
32
18
25
26
17
26
25
14
12
56
40
47
27
104

88
181

91
186

92
116

60
43
69
76
79
37
147

91
101

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page62

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

18

2008

INTEL

168

2009

INTEL

160

5

2010

INTEL

178

13

2001

INTEL

400

2002

INTEL

316

1
2

2003

INTEL

206

11

2004

INTEL

172

2005

INTEL

164

2006

INTEL

161

2007

INTEL

114

12
11
14

2008

INTEL

114

2

2009

INTEL

129

2010

INTEL

98

16
16

2001

INTEL

515

2002

INTEL

548

4

2003

INTEL

554

2004

INTEL

577

1

2005

INTEL

450

13

2006

INTEL

355

7

2007

INTEL

314

11

2008

INTEL

333

2009

INTEL

342

2010

INTEL

332

2001

INTEL

397

2002

INTEL

402

4
7

2003

INTEL

392

11

2004

INTEL

407

2

2005

INTEL

312

13

2006

INTEL

383

6

2007

INTEL

347

10

2008

INTEL

305

2009

INTEL

322

2010

INTEL

328

2

Minimum

29
33

25th

Percentile

Percentile

6

13
25

6

0

26
25

12
18

8
19

2
9

0

0

4
7
3
9
2
0
27
29

14
16

11

9

2

19

10

1
13
11

4
7
8

3

1

6

5
3

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

18

29

9
9
7
6
2
6
4
7
2

7

1

11

15

3
3

5
4

11

17

12
12
16

17
17
21

10

16
18

22
21

3
5

6
0

10

15

12

19
13
14

49
18
27
13
13
25
13
24
23
27
10
29
31
25
12
23
11
26
21
24

3

8

10

6

19
19

7
7

2

26
28
16

10

16

23

4

0

9

12

18

30
19
20
13
19
20

68
36
68
51
39
42
28
42
39
33
18
30
38
74
33
46
33
46
29
34
24
34
53
61
64
63
49
39
33
31
32
43
43

13

4
3

2
2

6
9
9
6
5
6
1
6
2
7
4

27
40
22
29

21
23

12
13

6
11

5
10

7
12

7
16

8
8

0

5

0

5

3

14

0

4

2

5
3

0

7
7
7
1
6
0
2
4

1
1

3

5
9
0

4
9
3
7
6

6

6

3

2

9
14

7
10
11

8

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page63

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

9

2001

INTEL

652

2002

INTEL

726

2003

INTEL

722

2004

INTEL

599

3

2005

INTEL

301

13

2006

INTEL

319

6

2007

INTEL

304

12

2008

INTEL

332

2009

INTEL

329

2010

INTEL

388

2001

INTEL

255

2002

INTEL

291

2003

INTEL

277

2004

INTEL

2005

INTEL

2006

12
14

Minimum

52
50
28
36

8
18

0

25th

Percentile

Percentile

26
37
14
22

0

5

3

5
2

5
7
9

12
10

6

0

10
13

211

3

54
47
31
49

32
42
10
15

133

14

1

INTEL

139

1

9

14

2007

INTEL

103

12

2008

INTEL

111

24
13
16

2009

INTEL

106

2010

INTEL

110

2001

INTEL

107

2002

INTEL

105

2003

INTEL

97

2004

INTEL

83

4

2005

INTEL

45

13

2006

INTEL

35

2007

INTEL

27

2008

INTEL

39

2009

INTEL

40

2010

INTEL

31

2005

INTEL

34

2006

INTEL

47

2007

INTEL

38

6

4
5
7

3

11
18

0

13
10

3
9
14
13
13

8
8
41
51
24
32
12
25
20
12
22

1
1
3
2

1

9
6
2

32
45
14
18

4

24
10
12
10

0
1

2

1

75th

Median

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

11
11
11

2
3

24

58
76

19

7
1
8
0
2
4

1

11

18
11
15

15
16

11
10
13

42
42
35
17
23
15
18
24
44
28
32
13
40
13
23
17
13
17
58
27
35
11
45
15
22
45
25
16
26
26
25

103

5

18
21

6
11

8
8
8
4
9
0
0
3

6

11

4
7
7

8
11
13

1

4

21

5

1

12

17

1

11

4
5
5

5
17

9
9
9
5

16
20
10

10
12
15

26

8
7
5

5

1

10

15

11

15

2
1
5
8
7
7

16
13
13

18
14
10
10
20
18
21

2

8
2
8

5

6

9

46
60
40
53
35
42
45
77
71
114

56
56
39
28
37
25
39
85
78
145

68
63
43
23
48
25
53
31
32
26

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page64

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

1

2008

INTEL

25

2009

INTEL

25

2005

INTEL

122

13
11

2006

INTEL

142

7

2007

INTEL

144

11

2008

INTEL

140

1

2009

INTEL

130

2010

INTEL

96

2005

INTEL

128

2006

INTEL

157

2007

INTEL

175

2008

INTEL

153

2009

INTEL

155

2010

INTEL

161

2004

INTEL

151

5

2005

INTEL

560

12

2006

INTEL

640

6

2007

INTEL

651

14

2008

INTEL

427

5

2009

INTEL

537

2010

INTEL

513

2004

INTEL

79

3

2005

INTEL

176

14

2006

INTEL

260

2

2007

INTEL

291

14

2008

INTEL

175

2009

INTEL

166

2010

INTEL

181

5
5
6

2005

INTEL

49

13

2006

INTEL

73

0

2007

INTEL

79

17

2008

INTEL

40

2009

INTEL

37

13
12
10

5
9
4
7
7

13
10

8
3

Minimum

8
3
9
9
1
8
1
1
9
9
15
10

7
11
48
16
14

5
13
10

25th

Percentile

Percentile

6

0

4
9
6
1
6
1
7
5
6
1
5
0
2
4

29

15

6
1

5

3

5

2
2

4
4
1
4
4
4
5

4

6

6

0
2

39

17

9

1

26
26
57

14

1

8
4
1

8
8
5

2

29
33
17
23

27
16
12
13

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

2

0

4

6

12
10

19
16
12
14

23
25
21
25

24
29
35
29
14
42
30
31
31
45
22
32
24
46
64
60
60
55
31
39
51
68
54
64
53
29
34
83
78
83
28
43

Median

6
9
2

12

9

10

4
8
4
6
6

4

8

18
18
15

27
25
23
17
22
14
19
19
36
35
18
34
17
23
25

9
12

7
12
11

5
1
9
0
7
5
8
7
3

4

0

10

17
10
17

10

13

1
0
4
7
8

13

3
4

6

12

4

8

13

8

19
14

5

2

8

11

17

43
19
31
18
17
15
32
28
37
24
30

0
5
4
5
9

5
17
10

8
8
17

1

5

16

19
14

8
1

8

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page65

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

1

3

5

69

2

20
24

11
17

62

14

5

INTEL

75

3

8
17

10

2005

INTEL

109

2006

INTEL

93

2007

INTEL

66

2008

INTEL

48

2009

INTEL

48

2010

INTEL

45

15
16

2001

INTEL

80

2

2002

INTEL

134

3

2003

INTEL

159

13

2004

INTEL

173

5

2005

INTEL

270

10

2006

INTEL

265

7

2007

INTEL

245

13

2008

INTEL

194

1

2009

INTEL

211

2010

INTEL

185

2001

INTEL

77

2002

INTEL

123

3
5

2003

INTEL

163

11

2004

INTEL

174

2005

INTEL

222

2006

INTEL

215

0
7
4

2007

INTEL

214

11

12
11

2008

INTEL

220

2009

INTEL

217

2010

INTEL

232

4
7
7

8
8
9

2001

INTEL

62

2002

INTEL

97

2010

INTEL

35

12

2001

INTEL

53

2002

INTEL

2003

INTEL

2004

12
12
15

1

13
12

6
8

3
6
1
7
4
1

3

16
29
12
23

14
21

9
9
1
9
10

6
38
35
12
20

9

50
54

1

1

5

4
3

2
8

0

6

2

5

2
2

19
22

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

7
6
9
6
2
8
5
8
2

10

16

1
3

7
5

14

21

11
12
12

14
20
22

10

14
15

20
25

2
3

9
3

11

19

24
13
13
39
25
26
26
28
10
26
30
28
13
26
25
24
23
27

24
27
18
49
29
34
33
31
14
28
31
40
25
54
38
31
32
34
25
38
45
44
21
31
46
33
25
42
27
33
50
46
27

7
8
9
7
2
4
1
7
2
8
5
11

4
3
2

9
6
4
3
0
7
1
3
4

24
36

13
13

4

11

5
7

0

1
1

3
8
6

11

1

8

3

8
15
12
19

3

8

11

9

18
18

5
5

3
1

10

17

24
29
17
10
25
12
20
14
24
13
16
16
15

1

4

7
4

12

11

15

4
7
5

6
6

8
6
11

9
1
0

8

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page66

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

13

2003

INTEL

143

2004

INTEL

174

2005

INTEL

246

2006

INTEL

242

1
9
3

2007

INTEL

227

16

2008

INTEL

205

2009

INTEL

202

2010

INTEL

211

2001

INTEL

42

2002

INTEL

79

2003

INTEL

106

2004

INTEL

102

4

2005

INTEL

126

11

2006

INTEL

133

0

2007

INTEL

142

15

2008

INTEL

150

2009

INTEL

142

2010

INTEL

153

2002

INTEL

34

7

2003

INTEL

36

2004

INTEL

2005

INTEL

2006

INTEL

2007

Minimum

18
21
11
11

0

5
7
8

11
11

4

12
14

44
46
23
18

5

6
5
7

25th

Percentile

Percentile

5
12

2
6

7

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

8
4
5
2

12

18

11

14

27
14
21
13
29
14
21
17
24

1

31
12
25
13
29
16
16
18
56

39
48
71
41
64
26
40
45
56
49
37
15
68
46
70
36
41
43
58

27

155

194

19
82
40
33
26
26
88
46
48
20
34
23
25

0
8
3

1

1
2
4

5
6
6

25
43

13
16

15

8
8
6
4

10
11
12

4
2
5

8

3

20
23
16
11

12

1

6
4

11

4

3
13

7
19

8
9
10

2

6

21

1

9

14

1

3

14

18
10

7
4
5

11
18

3

6

1

2
0
3

24

51

5

53
31
42

51
26
18

1

9

15

49

16

2

2

INTEL

49

15

13

16

2008

INTEL

50

20
14

2009

INTEL

49

8
2

23
16
25

6
5

9

14

1

1

41

1

18
11
11

2010

INTEL

58

11

0

2001

INTEL

41

2001

INTEL

83

2002

INTEL

52

3

21
14
14
19

2003

INTEL

42

12

2004

INTEL

39

2005

INTEL

36

58
12
29
20
15
19
35
25
14
32
15
25

0
1
2
8

9

2
7
1

2
6
7

13
13
16

1
5

0

4
2
8
9
9
9
5
2
3

5

9
1

9

10

4

10

14

2
2
4

4
8
2

11

18

1
6

3
11

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page67

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

6

9

1
2

9
9
5

15

19

3
3

2

8

11

19
16
10

33
20
45
58

96
10
19

109

3

9

1

1

2

20
18
10
10

14
11

11

8

23
24
13
19

6
4

2
7

1
7

51
37
18
34

23
29
11
11

2006

INTEL

34

2001

INTEL

89

2002

INTEL

67

2003

INTEL

53

2004

INTEL

44

2005

INTEL

35

2006

INTEL

32

2001

INTEL

87

2002

INTEL

64

7
9

2003

INTEL

38

17

2004

INTEL

32

2005

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

48

2002

INTEL

38

2003

INTEL

32

2003

INTEL

25

2005

INTEL

29

2008

INTEL

26

2009

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

53

2002

INTEL

48

2
1
7

2003

INTEL

38

18

2004

INTEL

41

6

2005

INTEL

54

23

2006

INTEL

27

2

2008

INTEL

25

12

2002

INTEL

27

2003

INTEL

56

2004

INTEL

55

2005

INTEL

75

38
11
17

2006

INTEL

74

0

2007

INTEL

101

19

2008

INTEL

88

9

7
6
3

1

8

8
8

16
34
23
14

6

5
7
1
1
13
16

8
3
3

8

2
3

10
12

21

1

4

7

169

175

2

66
31
14
56
57

66
51
19
71
96

21

161

161

1

14

20

0

8
4
7

5

53
44
51

26
13
12

13
19

4

11
85
47
23
72

12
88
47
32
87

27

206

9
8

1

149

6
12

16

4

1

12

17
10

26
17

54
26
23
34

21
23
18
33

25
17
43
49
30
39

19
14
24
45
27
17

13
20

0

2

24

24

57
45
58

8

9

37

8

2

4

10
49
17
21

13
22
57
38
89

8

8

5

Maximum

8

0

5

40
25
25

19
17
17

15
14

8
13
10

6
9
3
12

3

9

12

9
9

2
4

15
19
13
15

22
30
28
24

1
8

2
7

14
15

1
9

2
16

7
4

7

61
43
73
26

9
66
68
92
53

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page68

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

1

2009

INTEL

84

2010

INTEL

82

2005

INTEL

46

12
14

2006

INTEL

61

9

2007

INTEL

53

14

2008

INTEL

46

0

2009

INTEL

47

2010

INTEL

36

2004

INTEL

50

3

2005

INTEL

140

11

2006

INTEL

194

7

2007

INTEL

190

11

2008

INTEL

154

2009

INTEL

143

2010

INTEL

133

2001

INTEL

80

2002

INTEL

178

2003

INTEL

196

2004

INTEL

202

1

2005

INTEL

328

12

2006

INTEL

395

3

2007

INTEL

406

12

2008

INTEL

354

2009

INTEL

342

2010

INTEL

2001

INTEL

2002

INTEL

169

9

2003

INTEL

229

14

2004

INTEL

237

4

2005

INTEL

341

13

2006

INTEL

418

2

2007

INTEL

482

12

2008

INTEL

468

6

14
10

4
7
7

8

11
12

Minimum

26

25th

Percentile

Percentile

13

3
3
3
3
5
4
2

5
0
0
5

18

14

2
9
3

3

12

7
5
54
45
16
17

9
14

5
12

318

5
6
6

57

13

44
44
28
39

9
4

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

5

0

6

10

11
14

15
21
14
19

12
21
25
23
27

5

23
32
28
28
30
13
37
25
18
35
42
31
29
23
35
61
10
89
48
57
24
60
29
30
28
41
48

0

7
3
7
2
8
5
6
7
2
6
0
3
4

25
33

16
17

4

1
3
1
3

7
2
5

6

11

0

13

9

4

10

5

11

4
6
5

2

8

19
14

31
22
11
28
20
21
14
18
19
21

1

15
12
15

8
11

9

3
4

11
10
11

18

3

1

11

16

11

16

6

0

7
6
7
2
8
0
2
4

43
27

18
16

14

8
8
8
3
9
2

9

6
4

13

20

32

0

9

114

5
11

16

27
15
24
18

78
65
56
53
38

12

1

7

3

4
3
6

15

7

1

26
18
17

10

2

5

2
4
6
5

0

11

6

7
7
10

9

6
15
10

26
13
27
17
24
15
17
16
10

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page69

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2009

INTEL

441

2010

INTEL

441

4
7

2001

INTEL

34

10

2002

INTEL

68

7

2003

INTEL

119

21

2004

INTEL

141

5

2005

INTEL

207

13

2006

INTEL

248

0

2007

INTEL

309

15

2008

INTEL

309

2009

INTEL

287

8
2

2010

INTEL

307

11

2001

INTEL

31

2001

INTEL

83

2002

INTEL

73

5

2003

INTEL

54

10

2004

INTEL

36

2001

INTEL

90

2002

INTEL

94

1
9
6

2003

INTEL

80

12

2004

INTEL

74

2001

INTEL

145

2002

INTEL

135

4
9
6

2003

INTEL

115

15

2004

INTEL

130

4

2005

INTEL

34

12

2006

INTEL

39

4

2007

INTEL

28

11

2008

INTEL

27

2010

INTEL

28

2001

INTEL

88

2002

INTEL

80

2003

INTEL

86

3
3

Minimum

30
73
46
47
31
46
34
33
27
44
20
12
15
15
24

25th

Percentile

Percentile

6

0

0
4

43
42
18
19

18
16
10
10

19

3
0

2
6
1

16

1

4
5

8
9
1

15
18
23
61
95
12
33
26
36
25
16
27
23
25

28
57
48
85

8
9

5

11

16

2

4

10

15

19
15

14
12

2

Maximum

8
7

19
20
14
25
28

Percentile

0

22
33
13
36
54
41
21
33

5

Percentile

5

3
7

12
11
20

Median

29

8
8

0

95th

17

3
4
7
5
7
8
5
3

11
11

75th

8
1
9
9

12

11

3

1

8
6
9

17

23

1
1
3
2
5

6
14

9
8
0
2

9

10
16
14

11

9

5

1

9

12

20

9
8

29
10
35
14
20
14
25

27

10

5

4

1
4

2

9
4

15

11

14

5
9

15

2

0

12
10
13

54
44
34

28
32

19
17

13

9

9

5
4

13

21

3

14

8

28

7

5
1
6
1
4

3

7

5
6

6

7

10

7
5

150

25
61
82
67
49
27
57
42
89
12
54
10
10
16
62
48
41
53
108

47
38
20
29
36
43
60
63
40

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page70

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2004

INTEL

86

5

2002

INTEL

26

10

2006

INTEL

30

2007

INTEL

33

2010

INTEL

26

12
14

2006

INTEL

43

7

2007

INTEL

36

10

2008

INTEL

34

2009

INTEL

38

2010

INTEL

25

2006

INTEL

2007

7

Minimum

40
47

8
3
1
8
2
10

96

4
6
7
4

INTEL

77

10

13

2008

INTEL

67

2009

INTEL

74

2010

INTEL

75

7
5
3

2006

INTEL

63

3
8
8
0

2007

INTEL

74

13

2008

INTEL

64

2009

INTEL

69

2010

INTEL

62

2002

INTEL

33

2003

INTEL

76

11
12

2004

INTEL

89

0

2005

INTEL

102

2006

INTEL

105

2007

INTEL

98

18
16
18

2008

INTEL

85

6

2009

INTEL

88

2010

INTEL

92

2002

INTEL

30

2003

INTEL

78

2004

INTEL

84

1

2005

INTEL

90

21

4
5
5

13
16
10
17

6
2
9

19
26
20
10

6
39
18
33
12

5
2
10

25th

Percentile

Percentile

15
44

6

4

1
2
1
5
5

0

4

4

4
3

0

13

1

13

6
1

39
15
25

2
0
6

4

1
5

1
2

46
33
29
15

43
18
16

5

75th

Median

9

5

21

12

2
7
5
1
5
1
2
3
1
7
0
4
4
5
9
1
0
4
24

9
9
10

9
11

0
9
9
20

4
7
10

7

10
11

7
9
3
7
4
5

10

3
9
6

95th

Percentile

Percentile

2
1
12
19
23
11
14

8
11
13

8
14

7
12
11

1

1

12

17
11

4
6
5

9
7

7

13
13

20

1

5

16
16
17

25
21
22

5

13
15
12
17

9
17
21

3

25

3

2

15

26

8
15
21
21
34
19
21
14
20
18
17
20
11
19
20
16
28
16
14
12
46
88
30
44
33
36
23
23
31
58
44
31
46

Maximum

12
44
28
22
36
31
26
14
21
21
32
24
14
22
23
57
73
36
25
22
69
99
54
72
56
66
26
55
46
62
136

51
95

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page71

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

11
19

2006

INTEL

93

2007

INTEL

96

2008

INTEL

103

2009

INTEL

96

2010

INTEL

122

2002

INTEL

38

2003

INTEL

72

2004

INTEL

89

4

2005

INTEL

102

17

2006

INTEL

113

6

2007

INTEL

115

17

2008

INTEL

107

2009

INTEL

103

6
3

2010

INTEL

106

12

2001

INTEL

73

2002

INTEL

30

4
6

2007

INTEL

25

18

2001

INTEL

32

2001

INTEL

40

2002

INTEL

34

6
2
1

2003

INTEL

29

12

2004

INTEL

27

2001

INTEL

58

2002

INTEL

49

2003

INTEL

43

2004

INTEL

38

2005

INTEL

39

2006

INTEL

41

2007

INTEL

33

2001

INTEL

48

2002

INTEL

44

9

2003

INTEL

43

13

2004

INTEL

42

3
8
9
17
27

Minimum

17
12
21

25th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

5

9

11

15

8

Maximum

16
23

54
72
33
32
47
29

0
4
5

4
9
8

55
24
38
10
28
17
17
42
55
19
13

51
18
24

31
12
10

18
18

6

31

137

179

7
1

5

0

12

13

18

21
10
22
14

12
51
34
35
19
14
25

79
94
60
67
27
50
54

6

23
12
19

2

11

9

12

7

5

11
13
10
15
12
15

0

13
21
21

1

7

6

11

10

4

Percentile

0
2

15

3

12
12

Percentile

8
2

6

13
28
23

7
6

95th

30
50
14
19
22
25

1
8
9

9

75th

2
2
8
8
10
11
11

9
5
6
8
15
13

8
4
6

6
4
1

4
5
3
1
6

52
29

29
24

5

4

16
12

15

13

8
8

4
7
3

8
12
12

8

11

15

5
8

2

6
6

17

24

9
7
1

4
3

10

16

28
14
16
14
27

0

2
5

9

2
4

8
6
3

15

24

5
7

10
11
17
10

22
16
22

12
10

1

14
13

5

3

8

7

4

7
2

13

17

25

5

0

9

9
8
31
16
25
14
43
10
52

6
25
10
23
17
27
11

3
27
10

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page72

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2005

INTEL

41

2006

INTEL

34

7
3

2007

INTEL

31

13

2008

INTEL

36

2009

INTEL

26

2010

INTEL

27

2001

INTEL

40

2001

INTEL

360

2002

INTEL

273

2

2003

INTEL

203

16

2004

INTEL

125

3

2005

INTEL

165

2006

INTEL

128

2007

INTEL

103

14
13
15

2008

INTEL

84

3

2009

INTEL

82

2010

INTEL

92

15
19

2001

INTEL

784

0

2002

INTEL

667

1

2003

INTEL

583

13

2004

INTEL

494

2005

INTEL

510

2006

INTEL

407

2007

INTEL

375

2008

INTEL

349

2009

INTEL

386

2010

INTEL

379

2001

INTEL

845

2002

INTEL

774

7
5

2003

INTEL

753

11

2004

INTEL

742

3

2005

INTEL

741

10

2006

INTEL

602

9

4
5
7

1

1

3
13
12
12

2
14
14

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

5
6
4
2
3
1

0

58
20
27
15
17

35
11
18

5

5

1
3

2
0

10

3
5
4
8
4
1

3

27
28

13
13

1

1

4

6
3

4
2
9
0
2
4
17

10

11

3

12

18
10

15
17
24
14
12
15
86
18
14
42
26
28
31
27
15
24
35
27
12
27
18
27
28
26
13
27
30
12

18
18
31
15
15
15

2
6
5

9

8
9
8

3

20

7
6
5
5

0

10

15

3
8
6
8
1

14
11

4

7
2

10

21
20

5

Maximum

3

43
34
23
22
23
12

11

8

1
1
2

Percentile

7
3

4
2

4
6
9

Percentile

Median

0

3
2

21

1

95th

7
8

9
9
7
8
3
8
6
7
2
9
6

7

75th

1

12
13
15

2

7
20
21
22

6

15
20

20
27

4
2

8
3

12

19

12
10
10

18
17
18

13
13
10

18
21

0
1

7

5

4

0
0

10

16

24

14
14

24
22

4

9
8

1

9
7

100

68
54
58
28
36
35
40
22
33
64
137

34
63
43
34
46
35
26
41
50
68
63
82
51
43
33

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page73

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

10

2007

INTEL

586

2008

INTEL

566

2009

INTEL

574

3
8

2010

INTEL

590

10

2001

INTEL

881

2002

INTEL

850

6
8

2003

INTEL

804

12

2004

INTEL

807

3

2005

INTEL

872

10

2006

INTEL

800

7

2007

INTEL

817

12

2008

INTEL

808

2009

INTEL

806

2010

INTEL

874

2001

INTEL

592

2002

INTEL

580

2003

INTEL

549

2004

INTEL

584

4

2005

INTEL

635

13

2006

INTEL

582

4

2007

INTEL

613

13

2008

INTEL

612

2009

INTEL

590

2010

INTEL

643

2001

INTEL

219

2002

INTEL

223

2003

INTEL

222

2004

INTEL

225

5

2005

INTEL

239

13

2006

INTEL

275

3

2007

INTEL

280

15

2008

INTEL

306

2009

INTEL

312

4
8
9

8

10
14

5
6
8

8

12
18

7
3

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

13

0

22
15
19
29
20
26

9

38
34
36
46
99
86
99
53
61
43
54
29
40
40
79
66

32

148

8

5
1

0

7
1
4
4

9
3
8
8

53
45
24
34
19
14
14
16
11

23
33

14
14

10
11

17

4

0

8

11

14
12
16

25
18
24
14
19
22
23

7
13
13

1

75th

5

7

6
12
13

2

9

4

1

7
6
5
3
8
1
4
4

55
52
36
43
14
16
22
22
10

27
36

16
18

12
10
13

20

16

10

7
1
9
1
2
4

5

0

9

10

16

16
21
11

10
12
17

161

8
6
3

5

1

42
18
28
15
19
19
16
14
39

10

16

11

14

53
26
28
22
16

65
77
85
60
45
62

13

1
4

4

5
1
7
1
9

3

6
3

8

0

53
61
48
36
10
30
22
26
18

35
42
17
16

1

23

5

8

10

8

2
1

9
7
3
8
8

2

12

5
5
7

2
8
2

7
11
13

3
4

8
16

9
9
11

2
5

25

8
18
13

7

9

87
79
66
82
35
49
48
88
56

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page74

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2010

INTEL

356

13

2004

INTEL

25

5

2005

INTEL

29

11

2006

INTEL

28

8

2007

INTEL

28

14

2008

INTEL

27

1

2009

INTEL

28

2005

INTEL

29

2006

INTEL

25

2

2007

INTEL

29

12

2008

INTEL

28

2009

INTEL

28

2010

INTEL

29

2006

INTEL

32

4
6
7
6

2007

INTEL

31

13

2008

INTEL

35

2009

INTEL

34

2010

INTEL

43

2006

INTEL

34

2

2007

INTEL

44

17

2008

INTEL

54

2009

INTEL

58

8
2

2010

INTEL

68

15

2001

INTEL

26

2005

INTEL

26

2002

INTEL

50

2004

INTEL

26

2005

INTEL

31

2
5

2007

INTEL

31

16

2002

INTEL

93

3

2003

INTEL

87

11

2004

INTEL

80

2005

INTEL

88

12
10

3
7
9

Minimum

1
14

0
6
4
9
2
1
8
2
2
3
0
21

9
13

25th

Percentile

Percentile

4

6

1

3

5

8

2
3

5

1

1
2

0

8

8

6
6

9
2

1

25

23

2

6

20
10

10
10

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

8
1
8
1
8
2
6
7
0
7
1
3
4
3
9
2
1
4
8

11

15
10
15
13
22

29
12
20
23
26

2

1

10

14

18
15

56
37
25
26
26
18
29
24
15
27
16
21
18
53
43
37
23
22
36
62
36
25
58
29
27
12
19
23
36
16
29
29
29

3

4

5

4
4
8

16

15

1

5

1

11

21
11

16

8

0
8

9
6

8
1

4

26

14

4
12

5

1
9
1

3
8
2
1
8
9
7
4
3

3

11

7

11

1

11

8
1

12

3
6
5
3

11

1
9
6
8
0

3

6

18
14

25
21
10
25
10
14
18
39
23
17
23
21
23
53
22
20
43
15
25
12
15
22
34
13
22

7

16

6
9
11

9
16

6
12
11

7

11

17

5

4

7
1
1
4

10

5
6

13

12
23

3

0

10

15

2

6

4

7

13

20

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page75

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2006

INTEL

61

9

2007

INTEL

98

17

2008

INTEL

84

2009

INTEL

81

2010

INTEL

68

2002

INTEL

95

8

2003

INTEL

108

10

2004

INTEL

109

2005

INTEL

136

2006

INTEL

110

8
9

2007

INTEL

178

15

2008

INTEL

162

2009

INTEL

172

2010

INTEL

162

2002

INTEL

74

8

2003

INTEL

83

12

2004

INTEL

86

2005

INTEL

94

2006

INTEL

92

7
8

2007

INTEL

196

14

2008

INTEL

198

2009

INTEL

219

2010

INTEL

236

5
5
6

2007

INTEL

51

13

2008

INTEL

63

2009

INTEL

60

2010

INTEL

72

2001

INTEL

59

2002

INTEL

40

2001

INTEL

72

2002

INTEL

86

2

2003

INTEL

41

15

2004

INTEL

40

2

1
10
10

3

4
6
6

4

7
5
5
0
1
0

Minimum

10

25th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

2

6

10

16

4

0
9
3
2

3
3
3

2
6
5

37
16
22

24

13

13

6
7
3
1
10

6
9
5

4
5
1
6

4

2
2

11

11

2
7

5
8
8
6
0
6
6
8

4

17
14
15
20

12
13
14
16

3
3
1

1

4
5
2

3

4

13

11

30
35

35
37
12
26
27
13
30
13
31
34
35
32
32
32
14
45
34
32
41
35
24
26
21
28
21
22
16
18
25
54
21
35
33

14

22

5

7
5

1

8

14

11
15
19

7
7
3
1

7

7
9
7
1

19
31
27
14
17
18

11

18

28

6
6

10

14

11
16
18

16
23
25
13
18
15
21
16
20
13
16
22
30
18
31
33

15

6

15
24

9

0

20

Maximum

8

25

3

Percentile

22
22

40

8

Percentile

3

6
5

1
2
4
9
1
0
4
9
6
8
8
8
5

1
9
8

95th

14
18

1
2
4

15

75th

7

4
5
4

5

5
5
6

14

7
3
5

2

1

9
9
8
16
10
13

1

4
4

7
7
6
5
3

14

20

2

1

4

7

8
5

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page76

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

Percentile

Percentile

1
5
3
7
1
3

3
1
3
3
3

8
2
7
1
6
5

32
33
10
36

22
25

17
13

2005

INTEL

34

2006

INTEL

28

2007

INTEL

33

15
10
12

2008

INTEL

45

3

2009

INTEL

51

2010

INTEL

64

2001

INTEL

98

2002

INTEL

109

9
7

2003

INTEL

67

10

2004

INTEL

59

3

2005

INTEL

49

10

2006

INTEL

51

7

2007

INTEL

66

2008

INTEL

60

2009

INTEL

61

2010

INTEL

67

2001

INTEL

129

2002

INTEL

124

2003

INTEL

75

2004

INTEL

95

4

2005

INTEL

79

11

2006

INTEL

72

5

2007

INTEL

58

12

2008

INTEL

68

7

2009

INTEL

74

2010

INTEL

75

2001

INTEL

92

2002

INTEL

87

2003

INTEL

61

2004

INTEL

69

5

2005

INTEL

77

11

2006

INTEL

64

2

5
9

2007

INTEL

70

17

17

12
14

25th

4

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

14

21
17
17

35
26
29
24
27
37
32
16
32
28
41
22
33
24
28
32
36
57
96
44
43
25
42
28
37
39
47
38
69
20
49
33
79

12
10
11

18
22

6

3

29
26
29
13
23
32
12

0

8

24

8
9
3

6

13

0

9

4
2
1

7
8
9
2
7
5

13
13
15
11
11

21
19
23
12
24
20

27
37

22
16

14
11
11

17

5

1

27

11

16
10
15

24
23
26
26
22
27
14

12

11

11
13

3
8
7

9
7
4

0

13
10
14

40
42
18
31

2

4

11
32
10

0

4
3

1

7
9
6
0
9
2
4
4

27
41

18
17

50
47
18
38

Median

9

0

10
10
10
11
14

95th

5
6
6
2
6
1
3
3

4

4

5

75th

15

1
3
6
1
2

16

2
6

5

8
10

4

9
4
6
9
8

7

7
2

9
16
13

4
4

6
6
8

13
11
13

16

6

0

8

35
17
45

6
4

9

15

1

4

11

16

20

6

36

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page77

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

25th

Percentile

Percentile

9
6

4
5

0

15
15

28
46
25
36

25
43
17
15

7

6

17

10

Average

5
6
8

2008

INTEL

73

2009

INTEL

70

2010

INTEL

79

2001

INTEL

42

2002

INTEL

45

2003

INTEL

51

2004

INTEL

50

3

2005

INTEL

55

11

2006

INTEL

51

4

2007

INTEL

38

16

2008

INTEL

47

2009

INTEL

53

6
5

2010

INTEL

56

13

2001

INTEL

54

2002

INTEL

41

1

2003

INTEL

25

2004

INTEL

29

2005

INTEL

38

2006

INTEL

36

2007

INTEL

25

2001

INTEL

147

2002

INTEL

144

2
3

2003

INTEL

100

11

2004

INTEL

83

2005

INTEL

74

2006

INTEL

91

0
9
7

2007

INTEL

69

12

2008

INTEL

72

1

2009

INTEL

80

12

2010

INTEL

58

9

2001

INTEL

153

2002

INTEL

149

9
7

2003

INTEL

131

10

8

Minimum

16

3

6

25
14

13

7

2

1

3

19
25

15
19

12

4

3

21

15

0

12
10
17

3
4

7
5
3

7

25
23

15
17

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

1
0
4

5
6
6

9

17
22
11

14
14
16

15
17
19
43

20
19
35
44
35
147

8
3
5

8

13

10

14

21
10

18
12

30
13
62
28
32
20
28
28
20
23
25
20
27
17
23
30
14
24
13
28
23
23
10
27
26

15

24

2
1
9
7
6
2
8
5
6
15
10

2
9
8
2

3
1
1

7
6
5
2
0
7
3
7
4

31
33

18
22

15
13

9

3

12
11
12

10

7

3
6
8

4

6

5
1

7
4

11
12

2
6

19

1

8

9

12

1

15
11

3

5

12

20

9

10
19

20
14
21

7
2

2
0

1

9
0
6
4

11

1

10

5

12

6

9

6

16

5
16
12
17

4

5
2

8

5
5

60
71
82
50
25
45
34
26
53
27
22
29
27
25
66
25
32
21
32
31
26
21
30
32
39
16
31

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page78

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

4

2004

INTEL

126

2005

INTEL

136

2006

INTEL

207

2007

INTEL

168

2008

INTEL

153

2009

INTEL

157

2010

INTEL

149

7
5
9
4
6
6

2001

INTEL

84

12

2002

INTEL

90

8

2003

INTEL

95

12

2004

INTEL

95

2005

INTEL

100

2006

INTEL

167

5
3

2007

INTEL

170

10

2008

INTEL

171

2009

INTEL

169

2010

INTEL

184

5
4
6

2001

INTEL

27

14

2004

INTEL

26

2005

INTEL

29

2006

INTEL

57

8
0

2007

INTEL

67

11

2008

INTEL

65

2009

INTEL

65

2010

INTEL

66

2005

INTEL

26

2007

INTEL

34

2008

INTEL

36

2009

INTEL

42

2010

INTEL

39

2005

INTEL

34

2006

INTEL

29

2007

INTEL

37

4

5

7
4
6
17
13

2
13
14
12

7
8

Minimum

15

7
13

6
15

9
5
50
35
30
24

8
13

4
8

25th

Percentile

Percentile

19
23
21
13
19
16

10

4

18

10
27

7
8
3
2
7
1
1
4

11

18

12

6
5
4
8
4
0
4
7
7
2
8
5
5
2
5

5

2

5

52
30

42
12

2

8
1
6
6

5
4
0

0
6
2

12

11

1
2
3
4
4

12
10
13

12

5
5

4

2

0

4
1

Percentile

7
3
8
4
6
4

15
14

5

Percentile

7

25
27
11

95th

1

5
7
1
7
4
3

18

18
15
17
12

Median

7
3
0
6
1
1
2

13

3
5
1

2

75th

5

8

4

8
11

8

3
2

4
2

7
6

10

13
10

5
4
5

8
8

9
2

6

12

2

2

11

15
12

7
3
5

7
9

14
10

27
20

11
12
11

18
19
18
13
12

0
8
7

4

6

15
18
19
14
13
14

1

1

15
10
19
18
15
15
33
29
19
23
41
26
17
21

Maximum

39
32
32
29
17
26
20

7
25
36
40
26
38
24
21
19
18
18
11
16
61
48
39
29
18
34
39
23
29
49
31
23
23

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page79

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

3
7
9

2008

INTEL

42

2009

INTEL

41

2010

INTEL

49

2005

INTEL

25

2007

INTEL

32

2008

INTEL

40

2009

INTEL

39

2010

INTEL

44

2008

INTEL

26

2009

INTEL

28

2010

INTEL

29

2001

INTEL

57

2002

INTEL

39

2001

INTEL

149

2002

INTEL

133

1

2003

INTEL

111

12

2004

INTEL

99

1

2005

INTEL

90

10

2006

INTEL

71

9

2007

INTEL

45

15

2008

INTEL

37

2

2009

INTEL

38

15

2010

INTEL

28

9

2001

INTEL

207

2002

INTEL

174

6
5

2003

INTEL

178

11

2004

INTEL

182

3

2005

INTEL

204

10

2006

INTEL

165

4

2007

INTEL

141

11

2008

INTEL

118

2009

INTEL

126

2010

INTEL

108

15
15

6
9
7
9
9
9
3
1
3

3
7
9

Minimum

9
2
4
1
5
4
4

25th

Percentile

Percentile

4

0
1

1
2

0
3
4
7
9
1
4
4
2
3
5
5
4
8
6
7
3
3
2
9
1
8
4

39
30
10
23
14
10
19
22

19
22

12
11

13
13
13

0
1
1
5

3
2
2

13

4

9
4

25
20
15
22

15
17
12
15

6
24

3
9
3
10

7
4

0

9
1
6

1

7

5

12

0

5

3

7
2
2

6
6
5
0
6
1
3
4

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

3
8
7

6

9

12
11
21
19

6

21
10

9
4

1

16
30
42
30
30
22
21
31
35
28
20
16
29
20
25
14
24
23
30
13
27
27
11

1

9

10

16

26

4

9
2

0

7

14

10

17

24
15
25
14
18
20

10
13

4
8
6
7
9
7
5
1

2
2

7
11

9
15
12
12

9
5
8
5

9

17

8

16
17
22

1

10
15

1

14

3
8
6

6

5

8
8
11
13

Maximum

12
17
36
44
65
34
22
24
32
37
30
21
20
59
27
28
27
35
25
32
21
35
27
59
20
77
31
32
23
31
30
27
41

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page80

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2001

INTEL

181

2002

INTEL

206

5
8

2003

INTEL

204

14

2004

INTEL

206

3

2005

INTEL

227

10

2006

INTEL

219

3

2007

INTEL

202

14

2008

INTEL

192

2009

INTEL

175

2010

INTEL

161

2001

INTEL

102

2002

INTEL

121

2003

INTEL

128

2004

INTEL

140

5

2005

INTEL

126

10

2006

INTEL

125

0

2007

INTEL

125

15

2008

INTEL

131

2009

INTEL

141

2010

INTEL

136

2002

INTEL

31

2003

INTEL

37

2004

INTEL

42

7

2005

INTEL

46

16

2006

INTEL

47

2

2007

INTEL

43

18

2008

INTEL

45

2009

INTEL

40

2010

INTEL

42

2001

INTEL

29

2002

INTEL

36

2003

INTEL

50

2004

INTEL

54

4
7
7

7

12
12

6
5
7
12
11

5
2
9

2

14
14

5

Minimum

41
41
26
29

7
12

3
13

6
3

41
48
28
40
25
13
17
18
32

25th

Percentile

Percentile

Median

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

0

28
10
27

61
42

21
31

14
15

10

8
6
6
2

13

19

13

3

9
2

1

7

13

10

13

17

22
14
23
12
16
17
33

5

1

7

3

7

1

0
3
4

4
6
5

27
38

15
22

20

8
8
6
3

12
10
12

5
2
4
6
9

7

8
6

4

1

39
17
32

39
16
27

0

1

39

22

2

75th

4

10

5

7
10

9

3
4

18

1
13

2

3

13

17
11

6
5
5

21

12
15

12

7

9

1
1
4
4
9
8
7

3

9
9

7

19

6

2

10

19

3

4

14

20
11

1

2
1
8

7
2
9

14
38

6

5

12
19

10
15
13

18

41

24

10

5

1

30
16
44
15
42

17

9

8

6
13

3
6

113

57
13
62
19
16
19
44

47
59
63
57
26
20
29
57
47
41
15
75
32
76
30
24
25
40
35
16
67
41
65
30
22
24
51

1

5

30
10

67
12

9

32
10
24
11
27
19
19
18
10
28

0

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page81

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2005

INTEL

53

2006

INTEL

38

9
4

2007

INTEL

32

16

2008

INTEL

32

2009

INTEL

27

2010

INTEL

31

2001

INTEL

32

2002

INTEL

35

2003

INTEL

33

2004

INTEL

2005

INTEL

2006

INTEL

28

2008

INTEL

28

2009

INTEL

27

2
7
0

2010

INTEL

25

10

2001

INTEL

26

2010

INTEL

30

2001

INTEL

30

2001

INTEL

52

2002

INTEL

36

2003

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

47

2002

INTEL

44

2003

INTEL

44

2004

INTEL

43

2005

INTEL

44

2006

INTEL

39

7
4

2007

INTEL

31

11

2008

INTEL

26

4

2001

INTEL

46

12

2002

INTEL

41

2003

INTEL

31

2004

INTEL

26

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

1

0

17

13

9
3
13

1
3
6

11

0

6

5

18
42
32
15

13
22

34

25
44
43
17

35

18

2

9

27
12
13

27

9

1
0
4

2
9

8

3

9
7

4
8
9
6
7

19
13

2
11

1
4

4

4

3
0
7
1

8

31
26

24
26

3

9

6

19
15

15

12

0
7

8

2

4

12
13
10

1

9
9
7
3

2

12
15
19

23
29
12
24

22
25
76
18
19
22
61
43
31
14
68
89
26
14
35

4

13

1

20
19
37
17
13
20
51
40
31
14
54
32
22
13
15

19

21

24
29
13
28
11
10

12
11
18

6

22

13
13

Maximum

15

8

0

Percentile

12
11

4

5

7
7

Percentile

12

3

6
2
0

5
4
5

95th

6

7
2
2
7

9
7

Median

6
2

9
5
6
2

6
4
6
1

75th

17

8

12

9

12

1
7

5

3

2

9

2
6
2

12
11

11
15
10

20
11

1

3

9

12

5
1

9

5

10

4

13

6

9

4

1

10
15

7
10

2

13

0

4

14
18
33
12
27
19

6

27
30
35
20
23
13
11

7

22

8

5
20
18
50
14
29
23

7
28
44
36
21
29
19
18

9
31
14

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page82

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

7
2

2005

INTEL

38

2006

INTEL

28

2007

INTEL

30

2008

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

48

2002

INTEL

26

4
4

2003

INTEL

37

20

2004

INTEL

38

2001

INTEL

101

2002

INTEL

57

1

2003

INTEL

66

13

2004

INTEL

77

2005

INTEL

54

2006

INTEL

34

8
5

2007

INTEL

28

12

2001

INTEL

118

2002

INTEL

104

8
6

2003

INTEL

106

13

2004

INTEL

99

2005

INTEL

53

2006

INTEL

36

2007

INTEL

29

2010

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

95

2002

INTEL

2003

INTEL

2004

INTEL

112

3

2005

INTEL

45

2006

INTEL

32

2001

INTEL

37

2002

INTEL

37

9

2003

INTEL

45

16

2004

INTEL

45

11
11

2

1

1

Minimum

1
14

25th

Percentile

Percentile

1
9

3
1

5
0

18
23

11
13

3

1

15
20
23
13
17

15
14
19

4
6
1
22
35
13
26

4
3
7
7
8
2
9
7
10

2

8
8
7
3
0
7

20
24

15
12

2

15

3
5

1

8
3
9
6

7

1

13

10

2

3

85

8
8

2
4

7
8
3
1
4
3

24
23

15
15

87

10
10

39
36
18
36
10

6

8

6
7

10

41
30
25
30

39
30
12
20

3

5

13

6

15

75th

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

5
0

10

10
10

14
16
11
10
28

15
14
22
22
43
33
53
13
31
14
31
16
24
18
25

19
23
26
22
55
34
64
26
81
21
68
38
26
38
27
32
20
88
40
29
20
22
24
86
42
27
45
42
59
18
54
97
24

Median

2
2

17

7

2
4
2

2
10

11

18

3

2

5

7
2

13

11
11

16

5

1

10

18

11

4

8
1
8
4

9

3
1

12

5
12

8

7
7
4
1

7

4
3

11

16

4

0

10

12

15
18

12

7

9

2
3

13

20

10

5

4

8

1

8

14
30

7

20
16
19
19
12
10
24
10
33
19
10

4

92
11

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page83

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2005

INTEL

25

8

2007

INTEL

26

11

2008

INTEL

29

2009

INTEL

27

2010

INTEL

28

2005

INTEL

32

2006

INTEL

37

2007

INTEL

39

2008

INTEL

34

2009

INTEL

32

2010

INTEL

36

2005

INTEL

43

2006

INTEL

52

8
6
9
3
6
9
8
5

2007

INTEL

79

12

2008

INTEL

93

6

2009

INTEL

95

10

2010

INTEL

103

2006

INTEL

28

8
4

2007

INTEL

34

14

2008

INTEL

42

2009

INTEL

43

2010

INTEL

51

6
6
7

2010

INTEL

28

10

2001

INTEL

43

0

2001

INTEL

26

2001

INTEL

26

7
2

2005

INTEL

39

12

2006

INTEL

41

7

2007

INTEL

30

12

2008

INTEL

26

2004

INTEL

30

2005

INTEL

51

2006

INTEL

47

5
12
13

1
4

8
5

Minimum

6
1
4
1
3
0
12

2
11

6
5
5
7
2
6
3
3
15
15

6
7
3
2
16
18
16

0
12

25th

Percentile

Percentile

1

0

1

5
2
1

5
1
8
5

1

5
4

4

4
1

0

12

2

3
4

3
6
0
6
4
3
1
6
1
2
4
2
1
9
1
5
4
2
10

1
0

1
3
4
8

15
18
15

11
12
10

1

8

1

1

10
16

15

0
5

1

7

0

4
0
7
4
7
4
1

75th

Median

6
10

4

10

8
5
4
8
4
7
7
6
6

10

5
8
6
2

95th

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

13
18

23
21
23
25
32
16
19
17
12
14
25
33
15
23
22
22
19
21
27
17
17
15
19
29

27
24
26
26
34
34
20
28
13
15
35
33
21
42
34
31
38
46
63
31
20
20
25
39

27
28
21
26

36
34
24
30
10
11
20
19

6
18
23
11

9
13

7

10
12
12

9
14

9
13
11

9

13

15
10
10
11
12

3
7
6

8

10

19
14
17

4
4
6
9

7

10

1
4

8
6

3

1

4

0

8
5

12

17
14

1

9

9

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page84

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page85

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

13
22
13
17

2006

INTUIT

34

2005

INTUIT

28

2006

INTUIT

26

2007

INTUIT

31

2008

INTUIT

31

2009

INTUIT

34

2010

INTUIT

32

23
18

2007

INTUIT

42

9

2008

INTUIT

38

4

2009

INTUIT

47

11

2010

INTUIT

46

9

2006

INTUIT

53

2007

INTUIT

27

2006

INTUIT

26

2001

INTUIT

47

2002

INTUIT

27

2003

INTUIT

38

2004

INTUIT

40

2005

INTUIT

25

2001

INTUIT

39

2002

INTUIT

45

2003

INTUIT

44

20
29
12
13

2004

INTUIT

31

4

2005

INTUIT

30

2006

INTUIT

37

2007

INTUIT

57

21
11
17

2008

INTUIT

56

1

2009

INTUIT

52

17

2010

INTUIT

54

2003

INTUIT

187

2004

INTUIT

184

2005

INTUIT

173

10
16

2006

INTUIT

152

7

1

11
10
11
32
21

8

3

6
8

Minimum

14

25th

Percentile

Percentile

4

10

3

3

23
16
17
20
19
13
21
14
15
14
27
17
67
11
23
22

23
13
15

7

19
11
21

9

12
13

9

11
57

5

15
18

7

7

57
32
26
16

49
24
16
16

0

0

11

10

19
13
16
24
18
14
12

15

7

2
7

11

9
7
3
8

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

10

10
21

4
3

15

23
30
21
27

7

4

24
11

39
39
13

11

1
4
1
12

8

7

6

8
3

2
1
4
1
3

12

44
16

36
24

11
14
41

8

1
1
3
11

5
4
6
7
4
1
3
8
3

4

5

18
17
23
18
23
27
31
14

3

4

19
35
16
12

27
25
28
24

9
8

2

20
12
16

0

16

3
6
8

13

6

7
27
19
25

6
27
11
13
17
23
15

39
75
62
38
36
52
57
46
13
44
33
30
43
34
13
35
44
12
45
17
37
38
30
40
30
44
18
49
32
31
29
37
26

Maximum

44
75
62
70
55
68
121

77
19
56
51
30
44
50
157

54
56
24
45
77
40
45
30
40
32
65
28
63
70
60
45
67
48

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page86

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

2007

INTUIT

198

17

2008

INTUIT

170

6

2001

INTUIT

100

22

2002

INTUIT

140

2003

INTUIT

38

8
5

2009

INTUIT

172

17

2010

INTUIT

162

5

2001

INTUIT

122

31

2002

INTUIT

170

2003

INTUIT

49

2001

INTUIT

91

2002

INTUIT

116

2003

INTUIT

32

2003

INTUIT

61

2004

INTUIT

66

2005

INTUIT

68

2006

INTUIT

74

2007

INTUIT

54

14
10
11

2008

INTUIT

54

9

2001

INTUIT

36

19

2002

INTUIT

51

2010

INTUIT

29

5
4

2002

INTUIT

38

18

2003

INTUIT

44

2004

INTUIT

38

2005

INTUIT

36

2002

INTUIT

33

2003

INTUIT

42

17
10
17

2004

INTUIT

48

8

2005

INTUIT

53

2006

INTUIT

52

2007

INTUIT

59

16
15
15

2008

INTUIT

68

0

8
7

35
14

2
7
4

6
1

Minimum

13
24
59
44
14
25
26
62
49
26
65
42
18
19
10

4
14
16
11
56
25
11
36
39
23

9

31

25th

Percentile

Percentile

3
10
51
24
14

6

13
55
26
13
57
25
16

8
8
2
7
8

10
52
24

6

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

6
1

13

27
14

111

39

26

47
26
17
35
23
54
35

3
3
5
6
45

0
5

46

1
10

0
0
9
1
0
2
38
10

1

4
3
4
6
7

26

12

28
25
20

6

6
8
3
4

20
23

13
15

8
11
10

75th

0
3
11

6
3
8

5
6
5

13

2

36

6
6

37
11

1

5
3

14

8
9
7

27

0
1

6

21
16
25
15
24
21
13
27
30
10
16

7
17
20
18
19

9

17
13
14

17
10
33
15
10
25
24
23
16
21
24
22

3

5

15

4
0

18
14
10

4

7

44
56
47
23
65
50
127

40
42

51
46
15

55
30
32
18
37
35
36
32
13
45
25
84
55
23
44
41
67
35
35
37
58
21

130

6

40
38
27
42
39
43
32
104

59
25
112

67
30
44
70
142

47
36
47
65
47

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page87

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

23

2009

INTUIT

67

2010

INTUIT

71

2008

INTUIT

30

2003

INTUIT

186

2004

INTUIT

272

2005

INTUIT

307

2006

INTUIT

384

2007

INTUIT

444

2008

INTUIT

449

0

2009

INTUIT

294

13

2010

INTUIT

293

2004

INTUIT

37

2
3

2005

INTUIT

65

14

2006

INTUIT

83

8

2007

INTUIT

101

11

2008

INTUIT

97

1

2006

INTUIT

34

12

2007

INTUIT

55

2008

INTUIT

71

6
3

2009

INTUIT

59

16

2010

INTUIT

57

2004

INTUIT

39

1
3

2005

INTUIT

39

11

2006

INTUIT

39

2007

INTUIT

41

2008

INTUIT

34

2003

INTUIT

89

2004

INTUIT

104

9
2
1
6
2

2005

INTUIT

134

15

2006

INTUIT

164

8

2007

INTUIT

189

12

2008

INTUIT

222

2

2009

INTUIT

213

15

5
2
9
2
14
10
12

Minimum

16
24
12
22
23
11
23
23
27
13
35
17
10
28
18
18

25th

Percentile

Percentile

6
19
12
15
13

0

8
7

12

6

17
14

0

13

7

13

7

1
6
8
4

59
11

10
10

8

13
10

8
5

0

12

12

33
18
23
51
27
23
18

20
15

8

2
8
4

10
11
17

8

7
7
6
0
5
7
2
2
6
5
8
2
6
2
2
6
6
1
2
9
2
3
6
4
1
5
0
6
7
2
1
8
5

75th

95th

Median

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

21

36
17

51
41
24
38
20
34
31
45
15
39
35
22
32
35
37
14
34
22
20
48
26
17
25
25
12
11
36
32
36
28
44
14
44

89
70
40
74
40
53
46
80
70
85
66
26
44
49
46
31
35
28
28
68
35
25
33
26
15
11
48
47
83
59
98
25

2
2

4

6
1

17

12

9
9

19
17
19

11

20

1

8
9

13
10

20
16
20

3

1

10

17
11

2

3
7
4
1

11

0
3
9
7
1
1
4

6

4

6
21

4
9
16
14

6
7
13

1

7

14

22
17
20

7

10

3

2

13

24

129

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page88

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

Average

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

2010

INTUIT

222

2008

INTUIT

27

1
1

2009

INTUIT

25

15

2010

INTUIT

30

2007

INTUIT

41

2008

INTUIT

43

3
3
1

2009

INTUIT

38

23

2010

INTUIT

37

2006

INTUIT

36

2007

INTUIT

25

11
10

2008

INTUIT

28

4

2009

INTUIT

27

10

2010

INTUIT

25

5

2001

INTUIT

41

INTUIT

40

22
12

51

2002

4

2003

INTUIT

46

3

9

2001

INTUIT

32

30

2002

INTUIT

29

2003

INTUIT

27

2002

INTUIT

36

12
45
30
18
22

12
44
13
18
12

2003

INTUIT

32

2002

INTUIT

27

2003

INTUIT

25

2001

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

47

2002

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

54

2003

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

60

2004

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

60

2005

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

61

2006

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

84

2007

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

68

2008

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

87

2009

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

85

2010

PIXAR

ANIMATOR

85

2

9
7
15
15

8
5
12
24
15
22
26

4
3

7

11
12

31
15
15
31
21
13

19
13

9

21
17
11

Percentile

Percentile

Maximum

1

1

7
3

28

15

31

36
23
30
21
54
21
26
22
19
32
14
14
41
14

53
68
55

Median

1
1

9
13

5

11

17

29

2

2

10

6
2
4

6
6
4
1
5
2

16
15

50

39

8

6

19

1

0

1

1

16
14

10
14

1

1

66
85
77
64
25
15
26

62
82
72
14
18
12
24

4
8

6
0
5
8
5

95th

1

29

2
8
9
5
4

10

75th

3
3

9
2
8
4

22

6
13

9

5

3
5

6
4

18

39

35

31
21
17
31
23
15
10
15
15
11
57
36
13

1
0
0
3
0
2
8
12
18
15
10

9
7
12

7
7

9
8
4

17
12

7

11
14
15
36
20

0

8

6

6

29
20
65
31
21
18
19
22

33
31
63
37
27
36
35
33
17
17
59
14
14
37
20
75
31
22
18
41

1

595
200

82

96

120

132

84
67
18
28
37

2
5

7

51
33

10
11

14
16

23
27

1

102

5

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page89

of

112

Appendix B
Distribution of Yearly

Change in Total Compensation

Job Titles in Leamer Supplemental Report Regressions

5th

Year Employer

Job Title

Headcount

2006

PIXAR

ARTIST STORY

25

2007

PIXAR

ARTIST STORY

30

2008

PIXAR

ARTIST STORY

28

2009

PIXAR

ARTIST STORY

31

2010

PIXAR

ARTIST STORY

2001

PIXAR

2002
2003

Average

1

Minimum

25th

Percentile

Percentile

3

19
16
20

25

14
11

6
0

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

40

1

6
1

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

53

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

60

2004

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

41

2005

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

30

14
24
43
30

55
62
86
63

2006

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

37

5

2007

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

38

2008

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

41

2009

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

45

2010

PIXAR

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

61

2001

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

120

2002

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

125

2003

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

122

2004

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

146

2005

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

163

2006

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

163

2007

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

155

2008

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

170

2009

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

190

2010

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR

256

2008

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR LEAD

28

2009

PIXAR

TECHNICAL DIRECTOR LEAD

33

Notes
Source

Job titles shown include

Dr

those with at least 25 employees in a given year

Leamer’s backup data

Leamer Supplemental Report

Exhibits

1 and

2

3

4
9

11
10

0
7
18
41
23

4
1

9

15
12
19
13

17
12
17

75th

Median

1

13
10

10
11

0

1

23
22
24
11

17
18
22

15
10
15

0

34

2

45

4

12
14
15
40
24

1
0

18
24
30
32
23
21
23

6

37
43
17
19

56
64
76
69
57
20
16
22

Maximum

11

53
59
80
13

61
71
81
80
71
28
53
30
14
12
37

Percentile

10

9

2
1

Percentile

14

7

0

95th

8

9
5
24
11
17
17

6
13

8
16
10

5
23

8

5
7
12
11

9

10
14
15
56
24

0

4

11
14
10
18
11

1

15
16
15
15
11
62
37
15

2
5

12
11
15
16
13
73
39
14

5

6

20
16
13
19

121

41
44
27
133
563

3

3

94
96
65
27

146
113

6

25
25
27
22

1
106

84
47
37
19
32
31
11
28

96
38
29
30
42
199
272
205
167
147
112
121

53
53
71

7

41

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Appendix

C

Page90

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Page91

of

112

CurriculumVitae

Kevin

M Murphy
June 2013

Home

Address

Business

University

Address

of Chicago

1810 Pennington Court
Booth School of Business

New

5807 South Woodlawn Avenue
Chicago

Illinois

60637

murphy chicagobooth

email kevin

Lenox

Illinois

60451

Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
edu

Current Positions

July

2005 Present George J

Stigler

Distinguished

of Economics

Service Professor

Department of Economics and Booth School of Business University

Research Associate

Faculty

Bureau of Economic

National

of Chicago

Research

Education

University

of California Los Angeles

University

of

Thesis

Previous

Topic

Chicago

D

Ph

Specialization

and

and Academic

Research

2002 2005 George J

Stigler

A B Economics

1981

1986

Human

Capital

Positions

Professor

of

Economics Department

of

Economics and

Booth School of Business University of Chicago

1993

2002 George

Relations

1989

University

1993

Pratt Shultz

Professor

of Business

Economics and

Industrial

of Chicago

Professor

of Business

Associate

Professor

Economics and

Industrial

Relations

University

Chicago

1988

1989

University

of Chicago

of Business

Economics and

Industrial

Relations

of

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

1986

1988

University

Document440

Assistant Professor

Filed06 21 13

2

of Business

Economics and

Page92

of

112

Relations

Industrial

of Chicago

1983

1986

1982

1983 Teaching Associate Department

1979

1981 Research

Booth School of Business University

Lecturer

of

of Chicago

Economics

of Chicago

University

Unicon Research Corporation Santa Monica

Assistant

California

Honors and Awards
2008 John von Neumann

Lecture

2007 Kenneth J Arrow Award

Award

with Robert

October 2005 Garfield Research Prize

September

1998

College Corvinus University

Budapest

H Topel

with Robert

H Topel

2005 MacArthur Foundation Fellow

Elected

1997 John

Rajk

Academy

to the American

Bates

of Arts

Sciences

Clark Medalist

1993 Fellow of The Econometric

Society

1989

1991

Sloan

1983

1984

Earhart

1981

1983 Fellowship Friedman Fund

1980

1981

Phi Beta

1980

1981

Earhart

1979

1981 Department Scholar Department

Foundation Fellowship University of Chicago

Foundation Fellowship University

Kappa

University

University

of Chicago

of California

Los Angeles

Foundation Fellowship University

of

of Chicago

of California

Economics

Los

University

Angeles

of California

Los Angeles

Publications

Books

Social

Economics Market Behavior

Cambridge

MA Harvard

University

in a Social Environment
Press

Measuring the Gains from Medical Research
with Robert

H Topel

Chicago

University

with Gary

S Becker

2000
An

Economic Approach

of Chicago Press

2003

edited

volume

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

Filed06 21 13

2

Page93

of

112

Articles

Government

of

Market

Law

of

in

and Economic

Business

Unemployment
Labor

Journal

and Inference

Estimation
Journal

of Cigarette Health

Regulation

Schneider 24

Lynne

Two Step
Statistics

H Topel

pp 103139 ed Kevin

Markets

and Economics 575

Risk and Earnings
with Robert

Information

Klein and

1981
Models

Econometric

with Robert

H Topel

3

1985

370

Testing
in

with Benjamin

Wage

for Equalizing

Unemployment

Lang and Jonathan

Differences

in the

and the Structure of Labor

S Leonard London Basil

Blackwell

1985

H

1987
The

Evolution

Topel

in

NBER

MA MIT

Unemployment

of

in the United

pp 11 58

Annual

Macroeconomics

States

1968

ed

with Robert

Stanley Fischer

Cambridge

1987

Press

Cohort Size and Earnings in the United States with Mark Plant and Finis Welch
in

Economics

Ronald

of Changing

D Lee W

The Family and

A Theory

Age

Distributions

Brian Arthur and Gerry

the

State with Gary

Addiction

of Rational

in

Developed

pp 39 58 ed
Clarendon Press 1988

Countries

Rodgers Oxford

S Becker

with Gary

31

Journal

S Becker

of

96

Law

and Economics

Journal

of

Political

1988

1

Economy 675

1988
Vertical Restraints and Contract
and Economics 265

Income
Robert

Wage

Enforcement

with Benjamin Klein 31 Journal

Law

of

1988
Market Size and Industrialization

Distribution

W Vishny 104

Quarterly

Journal

of

Economics 537

with Andrei Shleifer

and

1989

Premiums for College Graduates Recent Growth and
Welch 18 Educational
Researcher
17 1989

Possible

Explanations

Andrei Shleifer and Robert

W Vishny 97

with Finis

Industrialization and the Big
Journal

of

Building

Robert

Political

Economy

1003

Push with
1989

Blocks of Market Clearing Business Cycle

W Vishny

in

NBER

Macroeconomic

Blanchard and Stanley Fischer Cambridge

Efficiency
in

Advances

Models with Andrei Shleifer
pp 247 87 ed Olivier Jean

MA MIT Press

Wages Reconsidered Theory and Evidence
in

the Theory and Measurement

Weiss and Gideon Fishelson

London

and

Annual

of

1989

with Robert

Unemployment

Macmillan

1990

H Topel

pp 204 240 ed

Yoram

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Age Earnings

Empirical

Document440

Filed06 21 13

2

Profiles with Finis Welch

8

Journal

of

Page94

of

112

Labor Economics 202

1990
Human

Capital

Tamura 98

Accounting

pp 107143 ed
1991
The Role

in

Workers

Changing

W Vishny
Michael

Wages

106

in

Institute

of Talent Implications
Quarterly

Journal

Grossman 81

American

for

Economic

Graduates

of College

12140 ed
Publishers

E Becker

William

in

F

with Chinhui Juhn
the United

in

Enterprise

States

Institute

Welch

Finis

pp 39 69 ed

over

Growth with

Time

in Workers

Marvin Kosters

H

with Robert

1991

75

Activity

Andrei Shleifer and Robert

1991

and the Effect of Price on Consumption

Addiction

and Robert

1991

Increased

Economics 503

of

States

Papers on Economic

Brookings

Patterns

with

Differentials

the United

Enterprise

S Becker

Convergence

Changing

DC American

Rate of Unemployment

the Natural

Allocation

Rational

Patterns

DC American

Topel and Chinhui Juhn 2

The

Wages

Trade in Wage

of International

Has

Black White Wage

in

and Their

Gary

1990

S12

Marvin Kosters Washington

Wages

Washington

Why

Economy

Slowdown

for the

and Brooks Pierce

and Their

Political

of

Growth with

and Economic

Fertility

Journal

with Gary

S Becker

and

1991

Review 237

pp

The Economics of American Higher Education
Lewis Boston Kluwer Academic

R

1992

Changes

Katz 107

in

The
The

Transition

Journal

Wages

Structure of

Shleifer

The

to

and Robert

Division

Quarterly

of

Journal

Industrial

Wages 1963 1987 Supply and Demand Factors

Relative

Quarterly

of

Wage
101

with Finis Welch 107

Economy
107

with Lawrence

Economics 1137

the Rising
in

Pitfalls

Quarterly

Quarterly

of Partial

Journal

of

Journal

285

1992

Reform with
1992

Andrei

of

Planning

Economics

Economics 889

Importance

America

Economy

in

410

S Becker

107

1992
of Skill

pp 101 132 ed

Russell Sage Foundation

and the Rise

Political

F

1992

Labor Coordination Costs and Knowledge with Gary

New York

of

Economics 35

W Vishny

Change and

Inequality

Journal

of

a Market

Tides Rising Inequality
Danziger

and Darrell

with Finis

Welch

Peter Gottschalk

Publications

in

Uneven

and Sheldon

1993

Returns to Skill with Chinhui Juhn and Brooks Pierce

1993

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

Change and

Occupational

for Skill

1940

1990

Page95

with Finis

of

112

Welch 83

1993

Wages

and Relative

Inequality

Demand

the

Economic Review 122

American

Filed06 21 13

2

with Finis Welch

83 American

Economic Review 104

1993
Why

Is

Rent Seeking

Vishny 83

A Simple
Journal

of

American

So

Costly to

Growth

Theory of Advertising as a

with Andrei Shleifer

W

and Robert

1993

Review 409

Economic

Good

or

Bad

with Gary

S Becker

108

Quarterly

1993

Economics 941

Relative Wages and Skill Demand 19401990 with Chinhui Juhn in Labor Markets
Employment Policy and Job Creation pp 34360 ed Lewis
Solmon and Alec

C

Levenson The Milken
Westview

Cattle

Empirical

Analysis of Cigarette

Grossman 84

in

with Chinhui

Labor Market Outcomes

Juhn 1

Social
Journal

Wage

Status

The

Economy

Inequality

Quality and

Political

of

S Becker

and Michael

the 1980s and Earlier

Decades

1995

26

Hike

with

Donald

R Deere

and

Effects

of the

and
108

Finis

1995

R Deere

MinimumWage on Employment pp 26 54 ed

Growth with

1996

Chaim Fershtman and Yoram Weissm 104

1996

and Family Labor

Supply

with Chinhui Juhn 15

Journal

of

Labor

1997

Trade with

Inequality

Economics 72

Journal

on Minimum Wages and Employment with Donald

Education

Political

Economics 72

Wage

Review

Review 232

Economic

in

Policy

Contrasting

H Kosters Washington DC The AEI Press

of

102

1994

1990 91 Minimum Wage

the Evidence

and Finis Welch
Marvin

Economic

the

American

Examining

Addiction with Gary

Economic Review 396

American

Employment and
Welch 85

A Scheinkman

Jose

1994

468

Inequality

Boulder

1994

Press

Cycles with Sherwin Rosen and

Economy

An

Economics and Education

Series in

Institute

R
CO

Andrei Shleifer

and Family Labor

53

Supply

Journal

of

Development

Economics

with Chinhui Juhn 15

Journal

of

1

1997

Labor

1997

Vertical Integration

Klein 87 American

as a SelfEnforcing Contractual

Economic

Review 415

1997

Arrangement

with Benjamin

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Unemployment

Nonemployment

Skills and Technology

M Romen

and Paul

H Topel

with Robert

the United

in

on

Perspectives

88 American

Page96

112

of

87 American

MA MIT

Economic

Growth with
145 1999

Economic Review

A Competitive Perspective
Economic Review 184

W

Craig Riddell

pp 283

Growth

1998

Press

with Finis Welch

Solutions

on

Gary

S Becker

Explorer

Internet

and Edward Glaeser 89

with Steven

J

Davis 90 American

2000

Change and

Industrial

with

1998

and Economic

Consequences

Canada

and Economic

the Social Security Crisis and Proposed

Economic Review 142

Population

States and

in General Purpose Technologies

309 ed Elhanan Helpman Cambridge

American

Filed06 21 13

2

1997

Review 295

Wages

and

Document440

the

Demand

of Increasing

for Skill

Welch in The Causes and
Welch Volume II in the

with Finis

pp 26384 ed

Inequality

Bush School Series in the Economics of Public

Finis

Policy Chicago University

of Chicago

2001

Press

Wage

Differentials

Welch

the 1990s

II

in the

Bush School

Economic
with Steven

Economy

on

Perspectives

J Davis

Increasing

of

Software

Public

ed

Finis

Welch

Policy Chicago

Design PC Operating Systems and Platforms

and Jack MacCrisken

Selected Essays

pp 341 64

Inequality

Economics of

Series in the

Finis

2001

of Chicago Press

University

Empty with

Is the Glass Half Full or Half

The Causes and Consequences

in

Volume

in

in Microsoft

pp 361 420 ed

Davis

and the

Antitrust

S Evans

Boston

New

MA Kluwer

2001
Current

Unemployment

Chinhui Juhn 1

The Economics

Papers on Economic

Brookings

of Copyright Fair

and Benjamin Klein 92 American

The Economic Value

M Murphy

Use

in

Economic

of Medical

Gains from Medical Research
and Kevin

Contemplated

Historically

An

Economics 299

Entrepreneurial
Japanese
Review

of

and

2002

A Networked World

with Andres Lerner

2002

Research with Robert
Economic Approach

Chicago University

H Topel

in

pp 41 73 ed
2003

Measuring the
Robert

H Topel

of Chicago Press

Market

with

Sam Peltzman 22

Journal

of

2003

ability

and market selection in an infant industry

cotton spinning
Economic

79

Review 205

School Performance and the Youth Labor
Labor

Activity

H Topel

with Robert

Dynamics

industry with Atsushi
354

2004

Ohyama and

evidence

Serguey

from the

Braguinsky

7

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Entry Pricing

Document440

and Product Design

Davis and Robert

H Topel

112

an

in

Journal

Filed06 21 13

2

Initially
Political

of

Perspectives

Persuasion

in Biology

Politics with Andrei Shleifer

in

112

with Steven

J

Longevity

with Robert

H

2004

S108

and Medicine

of

2004

S188

Diminishing Returns The Costs and benefits of Increased

Topel 46

Market

Monopolized

Economy

Page97

94 American

Economic Review 435

May

2004
Black White
Topel 48
The

Differences

Perspectives

Equilibrium

in the

in Biology

Distribution of

Becker and IvÆn Werning 113

The Market

for Illegal

Grossman 114

Journal

Two

Competition in

Fees

Interchange
Journal

Income and

Journal

Goods The

of

Political

of

Sided Markets

38

The

The Value

the Market for

Drugs with
2006

Antitrust

Capital

and Longevity with Robert

Fertility

Dealing

Law

H Topel

Need

a

1 The Journal of

Journal with

in

the Whole Foods

114

Journal

H Topel
in

of

Law

Political

97 American

the Household

Human

Capital

Isaac Ehrlich

Case with

Robert

Economic

1

Compared

Winter

9

The Journal

H Topel

Competition for Distribution

Intensifies

Journal Vol 75 October

Decline

The Market

Papers

Antitrust

to

2007

of

Human

3

2 GCP

2008

March

Robert Tamura

Women

Capital

Loss Analysis

Exclusive
Antitrust

and Michael

2007

1 Winter

Critical

S Becker

with Gary

Does Human

Magazine

S Becker

2007

Marketplace

Why

Gary

2006

Education and Consumption The Effects of Education
the

S

with Gary

Economics of Payment Card

Value and the Speed of Innovation with Robert

Social

Status

2005

Economy 282

with Benjamin Klein Kevin Green and Lacey Place 73

of Health

871

Review 433

H

2005

Political

Case of

Economy

Health with Robert

Value of Improving

S176

2006

571

Economy

Economic

and Medicine

2

the

Baby Boom and Economic

The Journal

for College

with Gary
Proceedings

Human

Capital

3

Growth with
Fall 2008

Graduates and the Worldwide

S Becker
229

of

and William

May 2010

with Benjamin Klein

2008

Boom

H J Hubbard

in

Curtis

Simon and

Higher Education of

100 American

Economic Review

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

H J Hubbard

William

Boom

the Worldwide

Explaining

Journal

Human

Page98

Women

Higher Education of

in
of

Filed06 21 13

2

Capital University

of

with Gary

112

S Becker

of Chicago Press vol

43 203 2010
How

Exclusivity

is

Used

to Intensify Competition for Distribution Reply to

Law

with Benjamin Klein 77 Antitrust

Maximum Long Run Growth

Achieving
the

Annual

Hole

Jackson

No

Journal

Federal

Zenger

2011

2

Bank

Reserve

Kansas City Proceedings

of

of

2011

Conference

Selected Working Papers

Gauging
Working

War

Economic

the

Paper

NBER

Working Paper

Estimating

the Effect

Unpublished

Working

The

Interaction

Unpublished

Persuasion

The Value
Philipson

On the
Working

The

of

Weighing

No 12092

Unpublished

Costs

Its

J Davis and Robert

Steve

Levitt and Roland

Fryer

and

Income

with Gary

S Becker

2006
2007

and Indoctrination with Gary Becker

of Life Near

with Steven

2006

2006

in Population

Paper

the

March

Epidemic with

of the Crack

Paper September

Growth

Working

S Becker

2001

October

In Iraq Versus Containment

H Topel

11th with Gary

Impact of September

End

and Terminal

Care with

Gary

S Becker

and Tomas

2007
Economics of
Paper

No

Climate

234

with

2010

Revised

January

Gary

S Becker

September

and Robert

March

H Topel

2010

of Music Performance Rights Market

Collective Licensing

Direct Licensing

Policy

Power Competition

and

2013

Competitive Discounts and Antitrust Policy with Edward Snyder and Robert Topel

March

Selected

2013

Comments

Comment on
Reserve

Bank

Comment
Reform

Causes of Changing
of Kansas

City

Earnings

Equality by Robert

Asking the Right Questions in the Medicare Reform

Issues and

Answers

Saving Chicago University

Z Lawrence

Federal

1998

pp 175 81 ed

of Chicago Press

Debate

Medicare

Andrew J Rettenmaier and Thomas

2000

R

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Comment on

Comment on High
Federal

Popular

ed

Page99

of

112

by Henning Bohn in Risk

Uncertainty

Based Social Security Reform

Chicago University

Feldstein

Filed06 21 13

2

Security and Demographic

Social

of Investment

Aspects

Document440

John

Y Campbell

and Martin

2001

of Chicago Press

by Hal

Technology Industries and Market Structure

R Varian

2001

Reserve Bank of Kansas City

Press Articles

The Education Gap

Rap

The American

Antitrust with Gary

Rethinking

MarchApril 1990 pp 62

Enterprise

S Becker

Wall

26 2001

February

Journal

Street

pp pA22
Prosperity Will Rise

The Economics
the request

Articles

Out

Ashes with

of the

S Becker

Gary

Wall

Street

Journal

29 2001 pp pA22

October

NFL Team

of

of the National

Ownership

Football

with Robert

League Players

H Topel

Association

report prepared

at

2009

January

About Murphy

Higher Learning

March 12 1989

the Middle Class Is

Extensive

reference

Unequal
Business

One

Means Higher Earning by

pp 1

Section

Long

article

Kleiman Chicago

Carol

The

about

Tribune

Wages

Structure of

with

Murphy

picture of

Why

Clearly
Jobs

to

Anxious

section

in

pp 1

17 1992

to

Fortune

Is

Business

on income

piece

Anothers

Section

May 21 1990 pp 106

education

US by Louis Uchitelle New

Long

Rags to Riches

Studys

Times June

S Richman

Murphy’s work on returns

Pay Widespread

Day

by Louis

York Times August

14 1990

inequality

Rut of Poverty by Sylvia Nasar New York

pp 1

Long

piece

on

the income

inequality

research

Nobels

Pile

November

Up

for Chicago

4 1993

Business

but

Is

Section

the Glory

pp 1

Featured

a photo of five of the

Murphy

and a paragraph about Murphys

This Sin Tax

is

Win Win

Commentary section
addiction

refers

brightest stars

by Christopher
to

Murphy

Gone

Long

piece

on

by Sylvia Nasar New York Times

on Chicago School

the economics

faculty

of economics
including

research

Farrell Business

Becker

Week

April

11 1994 pp 30

and Grossmans work on

rational

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Growing

and the economics

inequality

21 1994 pp

Sunday Globe August
details

about Murphy and
the old in

replaced

A Pay

Raises

Section

pp 1

Articles

featuring

January

how

about

New York Times

by Louis Uchitelle

about consequences

Article

new

the

generation

12 1995

January

of proposed increase

including the Chicago Tribune

in

Murphy was

in addition

Business

minimum wage

in the

Murphy’s comments on the minimum wage appeared

numerous
on

interviewed

26 1995
American Wall

The Undereducated
in

112

of

with picture and biographical

article

part of a series

Page100

by David Warsh Boston

of fragmentation

A1 Two page

research

his

Filed06 21 13

2

economics

Impact

other publications

CNN

Document440

19 1996 pp A12

Journal August

Street

Changes

the rate of returns to education

M Murphy Winner

In Honor of Kevin

Welch 14

Journal

of

Testimony Reports and Depositions
Final Submission of Kevin

of the John Bates Clark

Medal

by Finis

2000

193

Economic Perspectives

Last 4 Years

M Murphy

16 2009

January

in

the 2006

MSA Adjustment

Proceeding

Expert Report of Kevin

v
of

M Murphy

Corp et al The United
New York Report submitted on behalf

Amerada Hess

Inc

v News

District

M Murphy

of Kevin

Declaration

America Marketing

Group News

v News

In Store

LLC The United
No 07 706645

Services

Expert Report of Kevin

District

of Citgo Petroleum

29 2009

in

New

York

District

Corporation

the Matter of Insignia Systems

United States

Amerada Hess
of

regarding

New

District

Court for the

Center on behalf
States District

in the Matter of Valassis

a

News

Inc

a k a News

America Marketing

America Marketing FSI

aa

a

News

LLC and

American Marketing

States Third Circuit Court of Michigan Detroit

M Murphy
Corp et

share of total

Expert Report of Kevin

ak

Services

York Report

Citgos

10 2009

February

America Incorporated

America FSI Inc

America Marketing

v

the Matter of City of

Court for the Southern

States District

In Store Inc The

M Murphy

Communications Inc

York

January

in

of Minnesota

Deposition of Kevin

Case

23 2009

January

submitted

RFG

on

supply

M Murphy March

of itself and

all

13 2009

February

al The United

others

Court for the Eastern

the

3 2009

similarly

District

in

New

Court for the Southern

of Citgo Petroleum

New

Division

the Matter of City of

States District

behalf
at

in

News

In Store

Corporation

York Harbor

the Matter of St Francis

situated

vs

CR Bard

of Missouri Southeastern

Medical

Inc The

Division

United

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

of itself and

all

others

Court for the Eastern

States District

v

Meritor

M Murphy

Inc

Court Northern

v

v

April

16 2009

in

v

April

Hynix

23 2009

in

Court Northern

District

of California San Francisco

Expert Report of Kevin

M Murphy May 11 2009

Expert Report of Professor

the Western

v

Expert Report of Kevin

District

v

Trial

Meritor

LLC

and

States District

v

Microsoft

Sun Microsystems
al The United States

et

Division

a

Sun Microsystems

Korean

al The

corporation

United States

Hynix

District

Division

in the Matter of Jim

Corporation

Hood

Attorney

The Chancery Court

of

Kevin

M Murphy

June

12 2009 in

Inc The

Ranger Enterprises

the Matter of

United States

District

CITGO
Court for

M Murphy June 24 2009

Microsoft

Corporation

The United

in the Matter of Novell

Court Northern

States District

of Maryland

Testimony of Kevin

Communications Inc

Group News
Services

M Murphy

v News

LLC The

In Store

July

16 2009

in

America Incorporated

America FSI Inc

America Marketing

Case

States District

of Wisconsin

District

Incorporated

LLC

Meritor

District

Judicial

Petroleum Corporation

Inc

a California corporation et

State of Mississippi
First

Inc

the Matter of

Semiconductor

Inc

rel

United

the Matter of

Semiconductor

Semiconductor America

Hinds County

ZF

The United

of California San Francisco

District

a California corporation

General ex

ZF

The United

in the Matter of

Eaton Corporation

Hynix

M Murphy

of Kevin

Declaration

Inc

M Murphy

a California corporation

District

Inc The

Division

the Matter of

in

Medical

Francis

No 06 CV 623

Case

of Kevin

Declaration

17 2009

Eaton Corporation

6 2009

April

TransmissionCorporation

Court of Delaware

St

CR Bard

112

of

No 06 CV 623

Case

Deposition of Kevin

vs

of Missouri Southeastern

District

and Meritor TransmissionCorporation

Page101

in the Matter of
situated

similarly

M Murphy March

Expert Report of Kevin

Court of Delaware

Filed06 21 13

2

M Murphy March 6 2009

Deposition of Kevin
Center on behalf

Document440

ak

Services

a

News

Inc

the Matter of Valassis

a k a News

America Marketing

America Marketing FSI

aa

a

News

LLC and

American Marketing

United States Third Circuit Court of Michigan Detroit

News

In Store
Division

No 07 706645

Declaration

of Kevin

Litigation

The United

Declaration

submitted

judgment

M Murphy August
States District
in

support

14 2009

in the Matter of

Court for the Northern

of defendant

EBay

Seller

Antitrust

District of California

Ebay Inc s motion

for

summary

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

S Jerrold

and

Filed06 21 13

2

M Murphy August 21 2009

Expert Report of Kevin

Inc

Document440

Kaplan

v

in the Matter of

The

Corporation

Microsoft

Page102

112

of

Go Computer

Court for the

Superior

State

of California for the City and County of San Francisco

M Murphy

Deposition of Kevin

v

Incorporated
District

16 2009 in the Matter of Novell
The United States District Court Northern

September

Corporation

Microsoft

of Maryland

M Murphy

Deposition of Kevin

The United

Antitrust Litigation

September

21 2009

California Deposition in support

Ebay Inc s motion

of defendant

Ebay

in the Matter of

Court for the Northern

States District

Seller

District

for

of

summary

judgment

M Murphy September

Expert Report of Kevin

29 2009 in

Temperature Sales Litigation The United States

Trial

M Murphy October

Testimony of Kevin

and Meritor TransmissionCorporation
Court of Delaware

Declaration

of Kevin

Court of Kansas

District

1 2009

ZF

in the Matter of

The United

Eaton Corporation

M Murphy October

The United

California Declaration

Fuel

LLC

Meritor

States District

No 06 CV 623

Case

Antitrust Litigation

v

Motor

the Matter of

in

16 2009

further support

in the Matter

Ebay

of

Court for the Northern

States District

Ebay Inc s motion

of defendant

Seller

District

for

of

summary

judgment

Expert Report of Kevin
Devices
Intel

Inc

and

Kabushiki

Kaisha The United

Deposition of Kevin
and

S Jerrold

M Murphy October

AMD International

Kaplan

M Murphy
v

Microsoft

Sales

20 2009

States District

October

Intel

Court for the

24 2009

Corporation

in the Matter of

LTD v

Service

in

The

Advanced Micro

Corporation and

District

the Matter of

of

Delaware

Go Computer Inc

Court for the State of

Superior

California for the City and County of San Francisco

Deposition of Kevin

M Murphy

October

26 2009

Temperature Sales Litigation The United States

Expert Report of Kevin
Interchange

District

Discount
of

New

Supplemental Expert Report of Kevin
Valassis Communications

Marketing
and

News

In Store

Group News

Inc

Division Case

In Store

Fuel

the Matter of Payment

in

The United

Card

States District

York

M Murphy December

v News

LLC The United
No 07 706645

Motor

Court of Kansas

Antitrust Litigation

America Incorporated

America FSI Inc

America Marketing

Services

the Matter of

M Murphy December 14 2009

Fee and Merchant

Court for the Eastern

in

District

a k a News

Services

Inc

ak

America Marketing

aa

States Third Circuit

21 2009 in the Matter
a News America

a

News

FSI LLC

American Marketing

Court of Michigan Detroit

of

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Trial

Inc

Testimony of Kevin
and

S Jerrold

Document440

M Murphy
v

Kaplan

Filed06 21 13

2

11 2010

January

of

Go

the Matter of

in

The

Corporation

Microsoft

Page103

112

Computer

Court for the

Superior

State

of California for the City and County of San Francisco

Supplemental Rebuttal

Group News

America Marketing

LLC

News

and

Marketing

v News

In Store

In Store

LLC

Services

News

a

Inc

aa

a

ak

the

in

a

News

America Marketing

News

States Third Circuit

FSI

American

Court of Michigan

No 07 706645

M Murphy

Deposition of Kevin

ak

Services

The United

14 2010

January

America Incorporated

America FSI Inc

America Marketing

Division Case

Detroit

M Murphy

Expert Report of Kevin

Matter of Valassis Communications Inc

26 2010 in

January

the Matter of Valassis

ak

Communications Inc v News America Incorporated
a News America Marketing
Group News America FSI Inc
a News America Marketing FSI LLC and News

ak

In Store

America Marketing
Services

Case

LLC The

of Kevin

Antitrust Cases I and

County

Declaration

M Murphy

a

News

In Store

American Marketing

Division

II The

of Kevin

al The United

the Matter of Automobile

in

Court of the State of California for

Court Southern

M Murphy
District

April

Inc

The United

v

New

or Transfer

2010

Electric

Group Inc

et

New York

the Matter of Payment

in

for the

and Affiliates

Antitrust Litigation

The United

Card

States District

York

M Murphy June 1 2010

Court for the

Control

of

District

InStore

District

M Murphy June 21 2010

Comcast Corporation General
Assign Licenses

the Matter of the Application

in

News America Marketing

States District

Expert Report of Kevin

13 14

Discount
of

Supplemental Expert Report of Kevin
Insignia Systems

2 2010

April

Fees for The Cromwell

License

Fee and Merchant

Court for the Eastern

2010

28 2010

United States Superior

M Murphy

States District

Deposition of Kevin
Interchange

January

of San Francisco

Determination of Interim

to

aa

No 07 706645

Declaration

the

Inc

Services

United States Third Circuit Court of Michigan Detroit

in the Matter of

Inc

June

corrected

of Minnesota

in the Matter of Applications

Company and
of Licensees

8

NBC Universal
Federal

Inc

of

for Consent

Communications

Commission

Supplement to Expert Report of Kevin
Payment

Card Interchange

States District

M Murphy June 24 2010

Fee and Merchant

Court for the Eastern

District

Discount
of

Second Supplemental Expert Report of Kevin
Insignia Systems
District

Inc

Court for the

v

of Minnesota

Antitrust Litigation

of

The United

New York

M Murphy

News America Marketing

District

in the Matter

July

6 2010

InStore Inc

in

the Matter

The United

States

of

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Deposition of Kevin

News

Document440

M Murphy

America Marketing

Filed06 21 13

2

8 2010

July

In Store Inc The

Page104

of

112

in the Matter of Insignia Systems

United States

v

Inc

Court for the

District

District

of Minnesota

Expert Report of Kevin

M Murphy

W

by Thomas

Pennsylvania

28 2010 in the Matter of Commonwealth
Jr in his capacity as Attorney General of the

July

Corbett

v TAP

Commonwealth

of Pennsylvania

Commonwealth

Court of Pennsylvania

Response of Kevin

19 2010

M Murphy

Company and
of Licensees

NBC Universal Inc
Federal

Louis et al

v

in

the

and Michael Katz August

for Consent to Assign Licenses

Electric

or Transfer

Control

Commission

M Murphy September

14 2010 in

the Matter of City of

Co et al The Circuit Court of

American Tobacco

al

St

St Louis

the City of

of Missouri

State

Deposition of Kevin
et

Israel

Comcast Corporation General

of

Communications

Expert Report of Kevin

et

MD 2004

212

Reply Report of Mark

to

in the Matter of Applications

Inc

Products

Pharmaceutical

No

of

al

v

M Murphy

American Tobacco

Co

24 2010

September

al The

et

in the Matter of City of St Louis

Court of the City of St Louis State of

Circuit

Missouri

Supplemental Expert Report of Kevin

Commonwealth

General of the Commonwealth

al

in the

Commonwealth

Expert Report of Kevin
Hampshire

v

between

Cordis

Conflict

Prevention

between

Cordis

Conflict

Prevention

Trial

M Murphy October

for Conflict

of Kevin

4 2010

of

Hampshire Superior

New
Court

in the Matter of the Arbitration

CPR

Vascular

Inc

MD 2004

in the Matter of State

New

of

Products

Pharmaceutical

212

International

Institute

for

Resolution

M Murphy

October

7 2010

in

the Matter

CPR

Vascular

of the Arbitration

International

Institute

for

Resolution

M Murphy November

Cordis

8 2010

Corporation and Abbott

M Murphy November
v BP

Court for the Northern

in the Matter of the

Vascular

CPR

International

Resolution

Prevention

Management Company Inc
District

No

1 2010

State

M Murphy October

Testimony of Kevin

Declaration

al The

Corporation and Abbott

Arbitration between
Institute

et

30 2010 in the Matter of
Jr in his capacity as Attorney

Corbett

v TAP

of Pennsylvania

Corporation and Abbott

Deposition of Kevin

W

Court of Pennsylvania

Hess Corporation

Expert Report of Kevin

M Murphy September

by Thomas

of Pennsylvania

12 2010

Products North

District

in

the Matter of

RWJ

America Inc The United

of Illinois Eastern

Division

States

et

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

M Murphy November

Expert Report of Kevin

Management Company Inc

v BP

Court for the Northern

District

Filed06 21 13

2

15 2010

Philip Morris Companies

Inc

19 2010

No

Analysis of Kevin

Dodd Frank

Comments

of Kevin

L Katz

and Michael

M Murphy

Act Regarding Regulation

submission on behalf

of

Bank

al

or Transfer

Control

Lockout

on

November 10 2010 Report

the

in

of Licensees

NBC Universal Inc

29 2010
Loans The

of

Israel

Comcast

for Consent to Assign

Communications

Federal

Lockout

Drs Mark

the Matter of Applications

M Murphy November
Insurance

of

Commission

in the Matter of Reggie

United States

White

Court

District

M Murphy December 3 2010
Lockout

Insurance

White

in the Matter of Reggie

Loans The

United States

et

Court

District

of Minnesota

Deposition of Kevin

Company Inc
the Northern

v BP

M Murphy December 13 2010
Products North America

M Murphy

Philip Morris Companies

Inc

Inc The

United States

RWJ

Management

District

Court

for

January

17 18

2011

in the Matter of Craft et

al

v

a corporation and Philip MorrisIncorporated a

corporation Missouri Circuit Court Twenty Second

No

in the Matter of

Division

District of Illinois Eastern

Deposition of Kevin

Case

of Provisions of the

Fees November 23 2010

of Minnesota

v NFL

District

St Louis

District City of

to Guide Interpretation

November 24 2010

v NFL Lockout

Deposition of Kevin

al

v

al

of America Corporation

M Murphy

Expert Report of Kevin

District

Judicial

of Debit Interchange

Corporation General Electric Company and

et

in the Matter of Craft et

00200406 02

Economic

Licenses

States

a corporation and Philip MorrisIncorporated a

corporation Missouri Circuit Court Twenty Second
Case

RWJ

Division

of Illinois Eastern

M Murphy November

Expert Report of Kevin

in the Matter of

112

of

America Inc The United

Products North

District

Page105

Judicial

St Louis

District City of

00200406 02

Report of Kevin

M Murphy

Corporation on February

Consumer

16

February

15 2011

submitted by

TCF Financial

2011 to the Subcommittee on Financial

Credit of the Committee

on

Financial Services of the

Institutions

US House

and

of

Representatives

Declaration

Ben

of Kevin

S Bernanke

M Murphy March

Janet

L Yellen

Kevin

2 2011

in

M Warsh

the Matter of

Elizabeth

and Sarah Bloom Raskin the Board of Governors of the Federal
official

capacities and John

Walsh Comptroller

TCF National

Bank

v

A Duke Daniel K Tarullo

of the Currency

Reserve

System in

in his official

their

capacity

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Expert Report of Kevin

LTD

and

Declaration

of Kevin

Basketball

M Murphy

Court Northern

Expert Report of Kevin

District

Inc

14 2011

June

v

v

Sabre

the Matter of Datel

Corporation

Microsoft

July

1 2011

Deposition of Kevin

in

The United

the Matter of Certain

M Murphy August 17 2011
et

al The

Judicial

District

States

Gaming and

in the Matter of American

County Texas

of Tarrant

M Murphy August 19 2011

M Murphy

September

States International

67th

Intel

Deposition of Kevin

M Murphy

September

of Kevin

M Murphy

Gaming and Entertainment Consoles
United States International

Deposition of Kevin
Intel

M Murphy

October

M Murphy October

Hearing Testimony of Kevin
and

of

Kansas

Gaming

railroad

in the Matter

New

of State of

Court for the

27 2011

Software

Fuel
of

District

Kansas

in the Matter of Certain

and Components Thereof The

Trade Commission

810

2011

District

10 2011

and railroad employees National

NRLC

the Matter of Certain

in the Matter of Motor

District

September

in the Matter of State

in connection

before

M Murphy October
employees National

of

New

Court for the District of Delaware

with dispute

between

A

A

Nos
13569
13570
Emergency Board No 243

Mediation Board Case

A13572 A13573 A13574 A13575 A13592
between

Fuel

Court for the District of Delaware

14 2011

Related

Corporation The United States

Report of Kevin

9 2011

District

Temperature Sales Litigation The United States

v

Motor
District

and Components Thereof The United

M Murphy September

Corporation The United States

Direct Testimony

in

Court for the

Trade Commission

Expert Report of Kevin

v

in the Matter of

District

6 2011

and Entertainment Consoles Related Software

13 2011 in

connection with dispute

Mediation Board Case

A13570 A13572 A13573 A13574 A13575 A13592
243

LTD

Holdings

and Components Thereof The United States

Temperature Sales Litigation The United States

NRLC

in

of California

M Murphy

Inc

Expert Report of Kevin

York

Labor Relations

with the National

filed

District

Judicial

York

Holdings

The United

Corporation

Trade Commission

Expert Report of Kevin
Airlines

the Matter of Datel

in

Microsoft

112

of

Players Association

Entertainment Consoles Related Software
International

v

M Murphy May 26 2011

Development Inc

and Datel Design

11 2011

Page106

of California

District

of the National

Deposition of Kevin

April

Filed06 21 13

2

Development Inc

Court Northern

Board on behalf

District

M Murphy

Design

Datel

States District

Document440

before

Nos

Emergency

A13569
Board

No

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Expert Report of Kevin
Hampshire

v

al The

et

Filed06 21 13

2

M Murphy October

Hess Corporation

of Kevin

Declaration

Document440

17 2011

M Murphy December

1 2011

Temperature Sales Litigation The United States

Expert Report of Kevin

Inc and Thomas Shaw

States District

Court for the Eastern

Trial

Testimony of Kevin

v

Incorporated
District

Trial

Microsoft

District

Testimony of Kevin

78 2011

The United

Corporation

M Murphy December
v BP

Court for the Northern

in

29 2011 in

the Matter of Novell

Court Northern

M Murphy

Court for the Eastern

Testimony of Kevin

M Murphy

RWJ
States

Division

15 2012

in

the Matter of

Becton Dickinson and Company

District

18 2012

January

and Entertainment Consoles Related Software

of Texas Marshall

in

Division

the Matter of Certain

Gaming

and Components Thereof The United

Trade Commission

States International

Supplemental Expert Report of Kevin

New

January

v

Inc and Thomas Shaw

States District

the Matter of

America Inc The United

of Illinois Eastern

District

Technologies

Hampshire

v

M Murphy February

23 2012

Hess Corporation et al The State of

the Matter of

in

New

Hampshire

Court

Superior

Affidavit of Kevin
Michael

Kansas

of

Division

States District

Products North

The United

of

Fuel

District

the Matter of Retractable

in

of Texas Marshall

Retractable

State

Motor

Court for the

New

Court

of Maryland

Supplemental Expert Report of Kevin

Trial

112

Becton Dickinson and Company The United

M Murphy December

Management Company Inc
District

v

Hampshire Superior

the Matter of

District

M Murphy December 5 2011

Technologies

of

in the Matter of State of

New

of

State

Page107

M Murphy March

12 2012

Fruth Individually and on Behalf

in the Matter of Sharon

of Others Similarly

Incorporated The United States Circuit Court Third

Situated

Price and

vs

Philip Morris

Court Madison

Judicial

County

Illinois

of Kevin

Declaration

M Murphy May 3 2012

Technologies

Inc and Thomas Shaw

States District

Court for the Eastern

Comments
Revision

of Kevin

M Murphy

of the Commissions

DIRECTV Group Inc
Authority
Transfer

to

Transfer

of

v

District

DirecTV

Subsidiaries

the Matter

of Retractable

of Texas Marshall

LLC June 22

Program Access Rules

Division

2012

News

in

the Matter of

Corporation and the

Transferors and Liberty Media Corporation Transferee for

Control Applications

of Control of Licenses Adelphia

Subsidiaries

in

Becton Dickinson and Company The United

for Consent to the Assignment

Communications

and or

Corporation and

Debtorsin Possession Assignors to Time Warner Cable Inc
Assignees et al Federal Communications Commission

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

M Murphy

Expert Report of Kevin
Sabre

Inc

Judicial

Sabre Holdings

M Murphy

of Kevin

Capital Partners

LLC

LLC

The United

Expert Report of Kevin

67th

v

Motorola Inc The United

Washington

at

Ltd The

v

United States

v

the Matter of Kirk Dahl

in

District

in

Bain

of Massachusetts

the Matter of Kirk Dahl

Court

24 2012

Corporation

the Matter of American Airlines

Court

23 2012

July

112

of

District

in

States District

Page108

International

Judicial

21 2012

July

M Murphy

in

Sabre Travel

States District

M Murphy

Expert Report of Kevin
Capital Partners

July

The United

Filed06 21 13

2

20 2012

July

Corp and

County Texas

Tarrant

District

Declaration

Document440

District

v

Bain

of Massachusetts

the Matter of Microsoft

Seattle

M Murphy

Deposition of Kevin

August

22 2012

Corporation

v

Motorola Inc The United

Washington

at

Court Western

States District

in

District of

the Matter of Microsoft

Seattle

Economic
Evidence

Diego

from San

August

31 2012

Transferors and Liberty Media

Control Applications

Federal

et al

et

al

v

of the

DIRECTV Group

and or Transfer

to Transfer

of Control

of

Corporation and Subsidiaries Debtorsin
Cable Inc

M Murphy September

The American Tobacco
the County of San Diego

Deposition of Kevin

the Matter of Revision

RSN

Subsidiaries

Assignees

et

al

Commission

v

California for

in

Corporation and the

Corporation Transferee for Authority

Assignors to Time Warner

Communications

Expert Report of Kevin

Brown

submitted

District of

of Carrying an

Subscribership

for Consent to the Assignment

Licenses Adelphia Communications
Possession

News

Program Access Rules

Commissions

Inc

on DIRECTVs

Analysis of the Impact

Court Western

States District

M Murphy

The American Tobacco
of San Diego

7 2102

Co Inc

et

al

in the Matter

al Superior

14 2012

September

Co Inc

et

of Willard

Court for the

in the Matter of Willard

R

State

of

R Brown

Court for the State of California

Superior

for the County

Deposition of Kevin

Inc

Inc

v Sabre

State

of Texas

M Murphy

Sabre

for the Judicial

Expert Report of Kevin
Corporation

Holdings

v 3M

September

Corp and

District

Properties and

in the Matter of American Airlines

Sabre Travel International

of Tarrant

M Murphy October

Innovative

24 2012

Ltd

for the

County

10 2012

in the Matter of Avery Dennison

3M Company

The United

States

District

Court for the District of Minnesota

Expert Report of Kevin

Employee Antitrust
California San Jose

M Murphy November

Litigation

Division

The United

12 2012

States District

in the Matter of

Court Northern

Re High Tech
District

of

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Trial

Testimony of Kevin

Corporation

v

Motorola

Washington

at

Document440

Filed06 21 13

2

M Murphy November

13 2012

112

of

in the Matter of Microsoft

Seattle

Expert Report of Kevin
Dept

Prot

of Envtl

Court Southern

al

v

15 2012

Co

of

District

in the Matter of

New

Jersey

New York

Atlantic

Richfield

The United

Litigation

al The United

et

in the Matter of

States District

States District

Re High Tech

Court Northern

of

District

Division

Expert Report of Kevin

Deposition of Kevin

v 3M

M Murphy December 21 2012

The United

Antitrust Litigation

Corporation

M Murphy November

Court Western

District

M Murphy December 3 2012

Deposition of Kevin

California San Jose

United States

of

et

District

Employee Antitrust

INC The

Page109

Murphy

January

16 2013

Properties and

Innovative

in

Court for the

States District

re Titanium Dioxide
District of Maryland

in the Matter of Avery Dennison

3M Company

The United

States

District

Court for the District of Minnesota

Amended

Prot et

of Envtl

Court Southern

District

M Murphy

Expert Report of Kevin

Jersey Dept

v

America

Apple

Inc

of

District

Expert Report of Professor
et

v

al

Atlantic

New

February

et

in

the Matter of

The United

al

New

States

York

M Murphy

Kevin

8 2013

Co

Richfield

al The United

February

8 2013

in

United States of

Court Southern District of

States District

New

York

Declaration
et

al

v

for the

of Kevin

M Murphy

The American Tobacco
County of San Diego

Rebuttal

Expert Report of Kevin

v

Inc

Apple

et

al The United

February

Co Inc

et

22 2013
al

M Murphy March

States District

Second Supplemental Expert Report of Kevin
of Retractable

The United

Direct Testimony

Apple

Inc

revised

et

of Kevin

and resubmitted

Declaration
National

Southern

M Murphy

al The United

of Kevin

in

United States of America

v

8 2013

in

York

the Matter

Becton Dickinson and Company

District

26 2013

New

of

District

of Texas Marshall

in United

Court Southern

Division

States of America

District

of

New

v

York

on May 29 2013

M Murphy May 13 2013

Milk Producers Federation
District

April

States District

1 2013

M Murphy March

Court for the Eastern

R Brown

Court for the State of California

Court Southern

Inc and Thomas Shaw

Technologies

States District

in the Matter of Willard

Superior

of Illinois

et

in

the Matter of Brenda

al The United

States District

Blakeman

Court for the

v

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

M Murphy May 29 2013

Expert Report of Kevin
Corporation

v

Motorola Inc

Washington

at

Page110

112

of

in the Matter of Microsoft

Seattle

Television Stations
Univision
Public

Inc

Television

Broadcasting

Group Inc The

Expert Report of Kevin
Airline Pilots

New

States District

in the Matter of

Court Western

WNET

Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation

Service

Court for the Southern

v

al The United

M Murphy June 6 2013

of Kevin

Declaration

et

v

District

Univision

Aereo Inc
of

Network

Limited

f k a Bamboom

District

Thirteen Fox

WPIX Inc
Partnership

and

Labs Inc The United

States

New York

M Murphy June 7 2013

Association International

in the Matter of Patrick

The United

States District

Brady

Court

et

District

al
of

Jersey

Rebuttal

Expert Report of Kevin

Corporation

v

Motorola Inc

Washington

at

M Murphy June 10 2013

in the Matter

of Microsoft

Seattle

Trial

of

Testimony of Kevin

Apple

Inc

et

et

al The United

States District

M Murphy June 19 2013

al The United

States District

in United

Court Southern

Court Western

District

States of America

District

of

v

New York

of

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

2

Filed06 21 13

Appendix

D

Page111

of

112

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document440

Filed06 21 13

2

Materials Relied

Page112

of

112

Upon

Court Documents
In

Re

High Tech Employee

Class Certification April
In

Re

In

High Tech Employee

H Koh United

Lucy

Re

States

Deposition
Deposition

in Part Denying in Part Motion for

Litigation Transcript of Proceedings

Antitrust

Judge January

District

High Tech Employee

of Class Certification

Litigation Order Granting

Antitrust

4 2013

Litigation Plaintiffs

Antitrust

May 10

Before The

Honorable

17 2013
Motion and Brief

Supplemental

Re

Support

2013

Transcripts
of

E Leamer

Edward

11 2013

June

Expert Reports
In

in

High Tech Employee

E Leamer

Antitrust

Litigation Expert Report of Edward

Antitrust

Litigation Supplemental

Antitrust

Litigation Expert Report of Professor Kevin

Ph

D

October

1 2012
In

Re

Ph
In

High Tech Employee

D May 10

Re

High Tech Employee

January

M Murphy

17 2013

Academic

Sources

George Casella and Roger
William

E Leamer

Expert Report of Edward

2013

H Greene

Econometric

Do Old

Milton Friedman

L Berger

Statistical

1990

Inference

Analysis Sixth Edition

Ever

Fallacies

Die Journal

of

Economic Literature 30

1992 2129

2132
Susan

E Jackson

et

al Managing

ChangHwan Kim and
Correctly
Charles

Christopher

Measurement

F Manski

Errors

Economic

Human Resources

Eleventh

R Tamborini

Survey Data Estimate Earnings Inequality

Among

Do

Edition

Black and White Male Coworkers Social Forces 2012

Analysis of Social

Interactions

Journal

of

Economic Perspectives

2000 115136
Robert

A

Moffitt

Policy Interventions

Low Level

Equilibria and Social

Interactions

in

Social

Dynamics MIT Press 2001
Robert

S Pindyck

and Daniel

L Rubinfeld Econometric Models

and Economic Forecasts

Fourth

Edition

Donggyun

Shin and Gary Solon

Employee Matches

Scottish

New

Journal

Evidence
of Political

on Real Wage

Cyclicality

within

Employer

March

23

Economy 54 2007

Nate Silver The Signal and the Noise Penguin 2012
Other Sources

Agam Shah
The

Integrated

Intel

Freezes Salaries

Public

Use Microdata

from CEO on
Series

Down

Computerworld

IPUMS USA

2009

https usa ipumsorg usa

14

6

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page1

of

106

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION

IN

RE HIGH TECH EMPLOYEE

Master Docket

No 11 CV2509LHK

ANTITRUST LITIGATION
THIS

DOCUMENT RELATES TO

ALL ACTIONS

EXPERT REPORT OF KATHRYN

SHAW PH D

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page2

of

106

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

I

Qualifications

1

II

Introduction

5

III

Assignment

6

IV

Materials

V

Summary

VI

Defendants Pay

Reviewed

Defendants Pay

for Performance

Dr Hallocks
Avenues

A

Do

Practices

Prediction
Is

Internal

Similar

Equity

D
IX

Spillover

of

Pay

Increase

From One

That Impact

Could

12
Spread Through Certain

14
is

Used by Managers

to

Individual

Compensation

Do
14

Opinion

That the Suppression of External

Opinion

is

Dr Hallocks

Top of

Pay Data

in

One
20

Unsupported

Regarding Market Data For Merit Increase

Budgets

23

Also Unsupported

the

Box Theory

Is

Incorrect

25
27

Conclusion

to

Make

Performing Employees Who

Similarly

Work

Dr Hallocks

Reference Guide

Large Variances in Pay

8

Not Support

By Comparing

Dr Hallocks

Is

to

Evaluations

Job Code Could Lead to Spillover

C

Leads

Inaccurate

Decisions

B

Manager

Philosophy

to All or Nearly All Class Members

Individual

VIII

6

of Opinions

Based on Subjective

VII

6

28

Cited Exhibits

i

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

I

Page3

106

of

Qualifications

1

am the

I

School of business
over 30 years

insider

Ernst

Personnel economics

and use

and taught

is

research

field

in

knowledge and

insider

Throughout

involved in diverse

the

2009

project

on

Firms

Multinational

International

in

Advanced

books studied

one book studied

management

2.95 million

3

of

the structure of

Foundation

Capitalist

wages

researchers

the performance

go

of

within

from

gains

insider econometrics

in

the Business

generation

The purpose

on workers
Bureau

the National

Practices

and

have visited have been

electricity

sector

practices

I

have studied

I

of these visits

From

productivity

of

Economics

and Productivity

In the course of that

retail

work

I

of

edited

three

from human resource management practices and

gains

and across firms in Organization

For this and

countries

Sage

the Russell

trucking

Countries

within

OECD

For the past decade

to

2007

I

earlier

from the National

Foundation

Casey Ichniowski

Matters Handbook

and Kathryn

of Organizational

263 311

Insider

I

for

work

I

Economic

have raised

Science Foundation

the Rockefeller

have been studying technology

developed and taught

1

Press 2013

the field

Foundations

the

and the

Labor

From 2005

Valley

Differences

with other principal investigators

P Sloan

Department

Freeman headed

the productivity

Cooperation and Development

Alfred

which

and Japan Firms

and

pharmaceuticals

along with Richard

I

on

US Europe

to study the effects of the personnel

Two

data to identify

in

for

employees

their

co pioneered

also

I

economics

personnel

manage

firms

such as software steel chemicals

industries

trade services bio technology

books

how

personnel economics

my work

the course of

95 firms in

visited approximately

Research

and

labor economics

the study of

at the Stanford Graduate

practices

2

to

Economics

of

1

management

2003

Professor

methods and hiringfiring practices

econometrics a

companies

C Arbuckle

have researched

I

compensation

including

was

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Shaw

Insider

Economic

Econometrics

A

a course at Stanford

Econometrics Empirical
Robert Gibbons

editors

Roadmap

with

1

companies

Stops

in

Silicon

on Managing

Studies

of

the

Way

in

How Management

and John Roberts Princeton

Along

Talent

Labour

University

Economics 2009

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

which one tool used was

Valley During

Silicon

managers engineers
format we

answer

links between

companies

how

they address

4

Technology

new employees how

companies

taught

who

MBA

equity

to

and individualized

5
software

I

attract

who

my opinion

compensation

and pay

star

employees Our

employers and employees

2Fredrik

executives

investigation

Matthew

Stanford on

my current

in

which

we

simulate

course

and

the use of

these classes

the cultures of their respective

pay

including

I

have

and

firms Quite

for performance

internal

2

Our focus was

was based on

we

measured

jobhopping

firms in the

the relationship

compensation in the software

home

run products

a rich longitudinal

between

Economic

2

how

to investigate

both earnings

Freedman John Haltiwanger
Industries

to study

using a unique data set on the compensation

firms in a product line where

Stars Who Pays for Talent in Innovative

at

employed at technology companies

and the worker

types

Specifically

In

classes

can best use compensation

of researchers

star talent

employees

within firms and

Andersson

how

systems

and compensate

we examined how

due to pay increases

evaluation the

also studied

the course of teaching

are or were

worked with a team

different software product

In particular

We

my many other

managers

in this case arise

and careers of about 50,000 software

between

performance

and

and retain star performers and

perform exercises

on managing talent and

also recently

industry

how

employees During

students

share their experiences

often issues relevant

hire

We

in

MBAs and

strategies for both

manage companies

and

executives

they award

are often featured

the curriculum involves

reward and

data to evaluate

on compensation

policies

Using a question

contributors

in

offers

outside

data to

106

of

CEOshigh level

with company

and pay bonuses equity and promotions

select

Making Data Relevant

and individual

companies

discussed

human resource management

productivity

we immersed students

and other managers

and

Page4

analyze the compensation practices of about forty companies

to

the course

evaluation

attract

Filed06 22 13

Document442

firms

Julia

Journal

matter

levels and earnings

We

used

attract

data set matching

this

Lane Kathryn Shaw
2009

industry

growth

rich data source

Reaching

for the

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

the connection

to

investigate

in

the software

between

skilled stars are

stars

Page5

the payoff to high stakes products

industry In short our analysis revealed

product markets will pay

highest

Filed06 22 13

Document442

of

and the rewards

that firms that operate

highly

who

valued and paid than those

to

stars

home run

in

pay The

both higher starting salaries and higher performance

much more

106

are slightly less

skilled

6

Prior to

and

economics

a part of this

work

I

I

and researched labor economics personnel

taught

I

at Carnegie

Mellon

University

used production level data from firms in the

management

on productivity

strategies

from information technologies

gains

7

Stanford

insider econometrics

effects of alternative

productivity

my time at

am widely

3
I

industry

steel

published on the topic of personnel

Economics

I

am

the Journal of Political

economics

Economy and

the author of over fifty publications

in journals

have focused on a wide range of personnel economics

wage

structures

human resource management

and

why

employee performance

3

Casey Ichniowski

Matters Handbook
Press 2013

and Kathryn

274 77

5

editors

Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn
Enhancing

practices and their

Work Practices

Pay

17 Journal

of

Insiders

publications

the interplay between

combined impact on

Estimates

Economic

Robert Gibbons

Shaw

My

human resource management

Incentive

of the

of

Value

155

Perspectives

Studies

practices

How

New

Tricks

Brookings Papers on Economic

of

163168

Management

and John Roberts Princeton

Old Dogs and

related

profession the

and books

Econometrics Empirical

Insider

These and

University

Determinants of the
Activity

Microeconomics

165
4

Ann Bartel Casey

Journal

of

5

Journal
Incentive

vol 122

Economics

Economic

Pay
of

Economic

Estimates

Perspectives

How

Does

Process

Information

Improvement

Technology

Affect

and Worker

Skills Quarterly

4 2007 1721 1758

Perspectives

Insiders

Innovation

of Product

Edward Lazear and Kathryn Shaw

of

Shaw

and Kathryn

Ichniowski

Productivity Plant Level Comparisons

Journal

Shaw

Economic

of Organizational

Adoption of Productivity

1995

Beyond

Human Resource Management Practices

4

the QuarterlyJournal of

topics including

use particular

Shaw

Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn

Complementary

2003

companies

the

industries

publications have been published in the top three journals in the economics

American Economic Review

to model the

have also studied

other manufacturing

in

2003 As

from 1981 through

vol 21
of the

Personnel

4

Value

vol 17

1

Fall
of

Economics The Economists View of Human Resources

2007 91 114

Winter

Casey Ichniowski

Human
2003 155 178

Complementary

3

and Kathryn

Resource Management

Shaw

Beyond

Practices

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

the dispersion

of talent between

of informationtechnology

Filed06 22 13

Document442

firms and the variance

on productivity and

8

of

I

Economics from Harvard University

Economic

Labor Economics

of Labor

of the Society

Labor Economists

In

Employment Research
several

and

Foundation

9

Chair

currently

I

the European

e g Kathryn Shaw

of

Complementary

155 163168 2003

2008 was

Columbia

a board

member

of the

STEP

I

and on

Statistics

Award for

of the Minnesota

employment issues

Panel of the National

of

on

for the best paper

2005 06

the

a board

currently

panel of the National

a

have been an

a Fellow of the Society

Fellow for

and

I

have

2011 12

Science

Academy of
of Labor

Labour Economics Association

Insider

A is my Curriculum

Econometrics

Vitae

A Roadmap

with Stops Along

Beyond

Human Resource Management Practices

Wage

Edward Lazear and Kathryn Shaw
Wages

2008

New

Determinants of the Adoption of Productivity

of the Structure

Microeconomics

and

of the Council

those at meetings of the Society

including

Comparison

Activity

2001

am

award

the topic of

have served on a Research

I

elected

as the recipient

the Trust Faculty

identify

to

California

Member

confirmed

University

1997 98 on

International

Tricks

Los Angeles

Economics and

of

607 2009 607 617 Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn Shaw

Value

Economic

in

was honored

including

Attached as Appendix

See

Economics
of the

awards

teaching

am

I

the

have given keynote lectures

I

Economics and

6

received

for the best paper in

and the Xerox Research

Sciences

I

in

Economic Perspectives

Economists and

business and in 1998

international

received

2001

a Senate

and the Review

Editorial Advisory Board of the Journal of

member

was

I

non compensation

6

Office of the President from 1999 to

Advisors Executive

editor of the Journal of

College

106

and selecting workers

training

AB degree from Occidental

hold an

of

within firms the impact

impact of

the productivity

those with high level job and task skills and ongoing

PhD in

of compensation

such as the use of work teams carefully interviewing

practices

Page6

of

Structure

the

Incentive

17 Journal

Wages

of

Enhancing

4

16 Labour

Insiders

Economic

Work Practices

Shaw

Estimates

Perspectives

and Mobility in

Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn

1995 165

Way

Pay

An

Old Dogs and

Brookings Papers

on

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

II

I

understand

Apple

Apple Inc

Lucasfilm Ltd

106

of

Google

Inc

Pixar

Intel

Corporation

Intel

Defendants

collectively

to

be suppressed

Inc

Intuit

Intuit

conspired to refrain from

employees and other forms of solicitations

caused compensation

Adobe

Adobe Systems Inc

claim

Plaintiffs

that

the

for all or nearly all salaried employees

each Defendant

11

I

ground that

understand

Plaintiffs

an impact

12

I

employees

during part or

Class

to answer

attempt

structures

class

offer the Expert Witness

Plaintiffs

the Courts

that suppression

of

have

in the technical

of the period from January

all

filed

creative

a

renewed motion asking

and or

and development

research

2005 through December 2009

F Hallock

Report of Kevin

the Court

the

fields

Technical

Hallock

Report

in an

whether Defendants had such rigid compensation

question

wages

employees would necessarily have resulted

7

further understand that Plaintiffs

certify a class of employees

the

theory that there was a rigid wage

or confirm their

failed to support

to all or nearly all

on

the Court denied Plaintiffs first class certification motion

that

such that an impact to some of Defendants

structure

to

allege defendants

Plaintiffs

Lucasfilm and

conspiracy

alleged

that

Google

cold calling each others

in

Page7

Introduction

10

at

Filed06 22 13

Document442

some employees would have

to

affected

all

or nearly all

members

Dr Hallock

13

could spread an impact on compensation

certain features that

nearly all technical

7

4 id at

36 37

impact

Case

in

employees He

Part Denying

fails

to

other

Defendants

employees
at

45 13

maintained

have affected

Part

all

to

deposition

In

for

in entirely different jobs

The Court

is

all

Class

employees

with

e

i

that

structures

that

members

5

his

titles

one job

would

whether

the

a suppression

title

ripple across

evidence
of

will

wages

Employee

Order

at

43 1

analysis that Defendants

entirely different
with

any impact would

most concerned about

re High Tech

Class Certification

from

to all or

could be spread

impact

that

Motion for Class Certification

impact to an employee

such rigid compensation

or nearly

at

Dkt 382 Filed 04 052013
explain how it may be inferred

were so rigid that compensation

through time such that a detrimental

structure id

in

clarified

some employees

for

No 11 CV02509 LHK

However Dr Leamer

salary structures
together

class

Order Granting

Antitrust Litigation

that defendants each had formalized pay systems that have

states

to

would

necessarily

necessarily

move

result in an

the entire salary

be able to show that

some employees would

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

avenues i internal

through three

internal salary ranges

increase

percentages

would

nearly all class

III

could be spread based on a

benchmark annual

salary merit

top of the

box

None

theory

Hallock

of these

on some employees

of impact

to

all

or

me to

my opinion

address

Dr Hallocks

opinions

in this

whether he has demonstrated that a suppression of wages

regarding

affected

all

or nearly all Class members

Materials Reviewed

my opinions

In reaching

to

the expert

report of

and exhibits

declarations

Dr

economics

produced

the question

nearly all other

Dr Hallock

deposition

transcripts

discovery expert

in

and teaching

by

cited

relevant exhibits

and

exhibits

and

reports

in the fields of labor economics

with Silicon

this

my 30

years of

and personnel

Valley companies Appendix

B includes

matter

Opinions

Dr Hallocks

16

conclusion

employees

philosophy implemented

by

with technology

Consistent

Dr Hallock

individual

employees performance
the exhibits

that Defendants

each had formalized systems does not

suppression of wages to some employees would affect

of whether

or unionized firms

would expect

Kevin Murphy

have relied on and reviewed for

I

Summaryof

government

reviewed and considered Plaintiffs Consolidated

experience working

including

the materials

I

report material

documents

experience researching publishing

of their

to

members

Amended Complaint Dr Hallocks

answer

market data

Counsel for Defendants have asked

15

V

106

Dep 153 8 158 6 214 25 215 11 227 25 230 10 Dr

some employees would have

attached

of

ii use of external market survey data to benchmark

necessarily lead to or require transmission

matter and offer

IV

Page8

Assignment

14

to

equity

iii use of external

Hallock

also states that impact

avenues

and

Filed06 22 13

Document442

talent

to Defendants

points

managers

firms in Silicon

prepared by Defendants expert

6

to

Dr

the

employ

a

pay for performance

subjective

company

Kevin

or

Valley and unlike the

based on each managers

skills contribution

all

evaluation

and potential

Murphy regarding

the

As

I

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

variance

pay changes

in

in

Defendants compensation

performance system Compensation

the

same job

titles

17

and across job

practices and entire

pay

for

in

to the

some

flawed He

members due
is

but

one

on

first relies

compensation

due

to

to internal equity

view of

dissimilar

this

work

case

there is

members

next

also

would not expect

First Defendants

benchmarked

equity

a

members

In

of

against

relates

Dr Hallock

avenue

did not use the

a large group of firms

to

company

who

agreements
given

lead to impact

equity

7

the

at

is

doing similar

the

manager

wide level

to

who

are doing

perform at different levels

of external market

data to

data is

then internal compensation

how
on

one two

simply

and based on the

Defendants used external

all

or nearly all class

same compensation benchmarking
beyond

on

the market compensation

if

is

internal equity

should impact workers

Defendants use

However
to

a

my experience

concludes that

anti solicitation

be suppressed
this

Internal

concept of internal equity was used

that internal equity

avenue

culture

similarly performing employees

people From

avenues

to all or nearly all class

In a pay for performance

pay of

certain

to argue that any impact

such as employees in different jobs or workers

levels at Defendants could

I

internal salary

does not support

could spread through

setting pay for individuals

pay The

as a result of the alleged

market data

the

no reason

internal salary ranges

suppressed

pay

no propagation mechanism

is

employee compensation decisions not on

Dr Hallocks

benchmark

creating

could have been transmitted

by managers in

should consider

individual

19

to

pay etc

studied there

internal

considerations

make automatic adjustments to groups
evidence in

within

Defendants

will spillover to all or nearly all class

that impact

conspiracy

setting an individuals

make

pay for

among employees

and

philosophy

employees and set

firms I have

a misplaced

the alleged

a notion that managers

level to

performance

for

individuals

prediction

factor considered

work when

106

pay process

Dr Hallocks

18

pay

to evaluate

Defendant firms and the technology

built

of

titles

ranges to empowering managers
theory that pay increases

between

from using external market data

process

Page9

data is consistent with a

varies dramatically

to Defendants

In addition

Filed06 22 13

Document442

data and each

or three with which

it

had an

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

alleged

firms

cold

it

calling

agreement Given

Defendants used job

Dr

Second assuming
specific

title

market data

is

equally

base salary increase

or nearly all class

21

was

in fact suppressed

internal job specific

affect data for another

do

most

salary ranges

job title

the salary range for another

in salary ranges

of

nor

job title

not lead to changes

in actual

next theory that suppressed market data led

unsupported

I

am

suppressed merit

to

not aware of any evidence that market data on
or that suppressed data resulted in impact

on

all

members

Dr Hallocks

top

of the

box

theory

incorrect

is

Defendants compensation systems The documents
were

that pay determinations

assessment of individual

VI

would not

percentages was suppressed

Finally

basis in the

opposite

by consulting

employees

Dr Hallocks

budget

title

data

benchmark

to

the fact that changes

ignores

levels for all

20

that market

salary range for one job title affect

Hallock

compensation

increase

106

of

the large size of the labor market surveyed

suppressed market data for one job

would suppressed
Third

Page10

hard to imagine that the suppression of pay in a few jobs could lead to suppression

is

pay in benchmark data

Thus

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Defendants

left

in the hands

This theory

and testimonies

of individual

finds

show

the

based on

managers

no

their

performance

Pay for Performance Philosophy

Leads

to

Large Variances

in

Pay

Based on Subjective Manager Evaluations

Dr Hallock

22
summarizing

general

spends

economy

Defendants and concludes that

HR
23

administer

or compensation

I

of his report explaining

concepts of compensation

typical large firms in the

resource

much

Hallock

compensation

structures and principles

10 109 He

formalized compensation

that might apply across

then summarizes

evidence from the

the defendants each had formalized or sophisticated

systems of one type or another

Hallock

agree that Defendants had formalized compensation

compensation

design and

In Silicon

Valley and elsewhere

systems or structures to administer

8

most

pay

human

45

systems or structures to

large companies

including

have

using job

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

systemsjob

classification

benchmarking

titles

however
would
out

The

company has

fact that a

does not answer

and implemented

in a

way

suppression

of

A formalized

106

of

setting salary

compensation

to

a formalized compensation

employees

affect all or nearly all other

for increases

of whether

the question

Page11

market intelligence

external

to

ranges providing guidelines and recommendations

24

Filed06 22 13

Document442

etc

8

system or structure

wages

some employees

to

compensation

system can be carried

such that some workers wages can be adjusted

without

widespread effect on other workers

Dr Hallock

25

how Defendants

philosophies

pay determinations

test

stops short of adequately

compensation

made and

were

what

and verify whether impact spread to

how

evidence regarding

26

subjective

company

of their

and potential

10

high performers and incentivize

development

software

8

Press 2013

Along

the
the

Who

describing

Labour

Spring

Andersson

written

Matthew
in

management

Paul

editors

in

Fall

9

skills contribution

to the

philosophy to

difficult

to

measure

in

one day could be measured

Economics The Economists View

Econometrics Empirical
Robert Gibbons

practices

attract

but

of

2007 91 114

which

Insider

Studies

of

How

Management

and John Roberts Princeton
uses insider information

Econometrics

A

University

and data to

Roadmap with

Stops

same

Freedman John Haltiwanger

Innovative

describing

Insider

data

based on each managers

is however

Personnel

4

21

of insider economics

the benefits

practices

2012

Shaw

Economics 2009

Pays for Talent

compensation

Chapter 4

of code

Perspectives

Economic

impact of human resources

Way

Fredrik

industry

Economic

of Organizational

263 311

10
the Stars

of

Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn

Matters Handbook

analyze

of lines

should examine the

high tech employees For example

for

Edward Lazear and Kathryn Shaw

See generally

Human Resources Journal
9

way

or objective

shows To

data in this case

firms adopt a pay for performance

It

actual

studied Defendants employ a pay

talent

greater effort and talent

number

the

implemented how

membersone

managers

individual

compensation

the compensation

firms I have

employees performance

Technology

performance in a mechanical

made and

were

by

philosophy implemented

evaluation

compensation

or nearly all class

all

with other technology

Consistent

for performance

systems were actually

the actual

pay decisions

actual

addressing Defendants

Industries

Economic

Shaw

Oyer and Kathryn

subjective

performance

9

Julia

Journal

Lane and Kathryn Shaw
2009

48

describing

Reward Systems Human Resource

evaluations

Reaching

for

software
Class

Notes

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

may

the firm nothing meaningful

tell

Thus

complexity of the project

based on

27

Appendix

that Defendants

implemented

28

by

extensive

C is a

on

2000

follows

amount

only did employees

Dr Hallock

Figure

Hallock

Dep 95 15 96 12

Paul

2012
call

center

Shaw

Oyer and Kathryn

In contrast

certain

may measure

pay

for performance

firms are better

productivity

increase

its

and

and set

system can increase

broken windshields

by giving piece

rate

relied

sector

these examples

organizations

Reward Systems Human Resource
measure performance
the

not

12

or unionized setting to

15

used similar systems Hallock

on

by tracking

44

by

pay

the

at

who were

the firm attracted better employees

government

and performance

is

from switching

that results

replaced

for performance

that Defendants

suited to

pay

pay practices from paying on an

from the government

also repeatedly

referencing

case demonstrating

performance

These factors raised productivity

to suggest

1 Dr Hallock

18 206

11

pay

firm in question

refers to examples

if

this

performance system The classic paper by

for

more windshields but

install

his conclusions as

support

The

the firm instituted

very good at installing windshields

29

a

one particular firm that changed

house When

seen in

to evaluate

of productivity

pay system to a pay

hourly basis to paying for productivity

customers

the

in

employee performance

behavior and attracting the right workers There

the right

the significant

from a traditional lockstep
Lazear

evaluate

leave pay decisions

philosophy of paying for performance

the employers perspective

incentivizing

literature

to

of the evidence I have

collection

philosophy by empowering managers

From

productivity

like Defendants

are in the best position

in the managerial

believed

this

106

of

11

discretion

their

high tech

Page12

such as the quality of the code or the

about performance

firms in

managers who

hands of individual

Filed06 22 13

Document442

during his deposition

school

state

police officers

Class

Notes Chapter 4 Spring

based on objective

number of

measures

calls processed

such as a

or the length

of

each call
12

See also Casey Ichniowski

Management Matters Handbook
University
of

Press 2013

Human Resources

Econometrics

A

and Kathryn

of Organizational

263 311 Edward
Journal

of

Roadmap with

Insider

Economic

Lazear and Kathryn

Economic

Stops

Shaw

Along

Perspectives
the

Way

21
Labour

10

Econometrics Empirical

editors

Shaw

4

Robert Gibbons

Personnel

Fall

Studies

of

How

and John Roberts Princeton

Economics The Economists View

2007 91 114

Economics 2009

Kathryn

Shaw

Insider

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

teachers 127 22 129 25

conclusions

reliance

compensation

education

13

tenure and hours worked

philosophy

compensation

compensation

these systems illustrates

decisions

made

are not

in which

30

for

the pay of

management

one worker

managers

as they use their discretion

allocating

annual pay increases

managers

exercise

31
in

pay

13

these

workers that

contrasting

with more

Kathryn

Shaw

Software
particularly
increased

reflect

firms

the value

Fredrik

the objectives

practices

for the

recognized

highly
that

is

it

maintains a

of another

worker

the compensation

system

when hiring promoting and
and contribution

highly variable

to the

relative

performance varies over time and

individual

system of technology

Shaw

in

workers

Beyond

of

Cf

innovative

17 Journal

human

Andersson

Fredrik

Pay

Incentive

companies

their

of

resource

Id at

of stars to

Andersson

33 T he

valued

increasing

firms and thus increased
Matthew

the variance

the
of

Freedman John Haltiwanger
Industries

and paid than those

who

Economic

Insiders

Economic

I

have reviewed the

Estimates

of the

Perspectives

management

Value of

155

practices

163168

and to contrast

Industries
of

workers

Economic
in

Julia

Journal

the industry

economy towards knowledge

Lane

2009 5

receive

workers has

pay
Julia

Journal

are slightly less

14

Freedman John Haltiwanger

Matthew

movement of

thus leads to variances

or effort

skills

Stars Who Pays for Talent in Innovative

Stars Who Pays for Talent in Innovative

be

pay

pay

of performance

on average pay relatively high salaries but a small subset

wages

14

much more

their

differences

and Kathryn

traditional

Reaching

high

among others

as a function

Human Resource Management Practices

2003 155 80

fixed relative to the

firms the pay of one worker

for performance

Casey Ichniowski

Complementary

which

in

of discretion

The pay

across

structure

determine the wages of individuals

determine compensation

worker depending on how

pay of another

and output

job codes but these serve as mere guidelines for

to

to individuals

compensation

traditional

performance

as

level but are set by a rigid rule of salary

based firms

begins with pay ranges assigned

to

is

with his

on measures such

system has rigid rules for allocating

in technology

In contrast

to

an example of a rigid

and unionized firms employ a

individualized

the individual

at

generally

Unlike

on

106

of

the core problem

firms base pay

traditional

rather than

the traditional compensation

salary structure

These

is

philosophy therefore leads to a compensation

schedules that leave no discretion
Because

on

Page13

compensation

Unlike Defendants in this case government

traditional

Traditional

school teachers

stating public

Dr Hallocks

pay structure

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Lane Kathryn Shaw

2009 4

Reaching

for the

The highest skilled stars are

skilled Hallock

himself

wrote that

it

should

paying people the same for working for a period of time for example may make others upset

11

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

exhibits

changes

in

Dr Kevin

prepared by Defendants expert

As

Defendants compensation data

system the compensation

shows

data

employees within the same job

are highly

talent

the employee

is

a

titles

Murphy

compensation changes

that

and across job

skills education

star employee

for an individual

32

from cold

VII

structure in which

Defendants

changes

Pay Practices

The pay

of the

decisions

employees

value to the firm whether
past compensation

manager making

considerations

in compensation

that

go

the

into deciding

Do

Not Support

the

pay

experience and the materials

superior

I

members

class

Spillover

odds with a

employees resulting

for individual

all

is at

of

Pay Increase From One

Members

practices of technology

practices aimed at supporting

employees

across

in compensation

Individual to All or Nearly All Class

33

overall

an employees

changes in compensation for

necessitates

calls

and

among

vary dramatically

15

employee

This significant variation

compensation

in pay

the variance

an individual

demand and

potential

other factors

106

of

would be expected when

as

titles

or a poor performer

many

decision and

Page14

one would expect in a pay for performance

history the budget for compensation the idiosyncrasies
compensation

regarding

based on myriad factors including

individualized

performance

Filed06 22 13

Document442

firms

form

a cohesive system of managerial

company performance

have reviewed in

this

Based on

in the marketplace

case technology firms

my

including

continued

because some are more productive
Earn

per period

15

Thomas Lemieux

The Quarterly
Haltiwanger

Julia

Economic

Journal

than

who

those

2009 4

The

are slightly less

highest

skilled

skilled

Human Resources

within

citing

occupations

and across

Press

and Daniel Parent

1149

Reaching

for the

software

Fredrik

of

the upper

People Earn

What They

Wage

Inequality

Pay and

Freedman John

Matthew

Stars Who Pays for Talent

in

Innovative

industry starsare much more highly

Economic
tail

Pay Why

2012

Performance

Andersson

Edward Lazear and Kathryn Shaw
Journal

has risen markedly mainly because

has occurred

firms

2009 124

Univ

Cambridge

MacLeod

Bentley

Lane Kathryn Shaw

Economists View of
inequality

W

Journal of Economics

F Hallock

others Kevin

than

And What You Can Do Now To Make More 87

of

Perspectives

high earners has grown

occupations The variance

Autor Katz and Kearney 2006

12

of

Economics The

Personnel

vol 21

Industries

valued and paid

4

Fall

2007

4

This rising variance

pay has also risen within

firms

W
of

age

pay

and across

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Defendants

generally

use a typical

set

of compensation

employees

Page15

The

practices

of

106

large variances

pay at

in

systems that were flexible enough to allow the

each of the Defendants reflect compensation
adjustments of an individual

Filed06 22 13

Document442

compensation

without shifting the entire compensation

structure

34

Pay

is set

first

during the hiring process

families and then in job codes and grade levels within

the hiring decision

he she

formed from market

uses his her discretion

intelligence

data from consulting

gathers

to set the

pay

Jobs are typically arranged in job

these families

When

along with the guidelines

of the individual

he

the

of

pay ranges

hiring The firm typically

is

and others on pay by job

firms such as Radford

code The

then generally sets a midpoint target and a range for job codes within the firm

manager

new

hires an

hires

employee he chooses

expected value

35

Pay

is

to

at

to

36

on

expected

Pay may

Each manager

the performance

those

who

job

code

38
retain an

on an

or to

at

by

accompanied

When

the

hire based on the

a new job code

The

may

decision

be promoted to

to promote is

can be expected to

with the promotion As in the decision
pay decision pay

a personalized

is set

also be adjusted

individuals

Lastly based on

to the firm

during the annual or

Those

semiannual

performance review

who

are star employees will receive

little

or

when

performance

my experience

employee when he she

to

according

given a budget and told to allocate that budget to pay increases

employee

firm

other firms

The employee

process

consistent

employees will receive

Pay may

allocated based

is

also be adjusted

is

wage

new

based on his assessment that the employee

contribution

of each

are laggard

37

to

to promote

the employees

process

same

the higher level of performance

hire the decision

that fits the individual

during the promotion

a higher grade level within the

perform

pay

the firmand his alternative

adjusted

determined by each manager

the

manager makes

receives

bonuses

and equity are allocated

on

the performance

offer

I

These are

of his

in relatively rare instances pay

13

large raises

no raise

or based

an outside

based

team

may

say these instances

be adjusted

are relatively

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

rare because

pay increases

are generally

allowed

39

are typically only offered

C

Assume
The

performer

work

juncture

of this typical process

or retention

over

a

to

an outside

spill

A is the

process

for determining

performance

individual

offer

40
process

VIII

and

those

to

be

at

who do

Taken

the

or

be

will typically

he

his

achievers

pay range when he
a

bigger

is

the hiring

would

I

three

C is the

paid for performance

not expect a

workers

AB

below average

at various

stages in his

hired he will likely be

annual pay raise

employer I would

If

A receives

not expect his higher

pay to

not have his capabilities

as a

whole

there is

no

Prediction

propagation mechanism

apparent

firms and other technology

Dr Hallocks

key

worker Consider

will likely receive

matched by

is

pay

median performer and

the upper end of the

offer is

that

in Defendant

Is

A

pay range

higher

B is

star performer

star performer

life he will likely

promoted

106

of

The lower

to the high achievers

pay gain for one worker to lead to a pay gain for another
and

Page16

to leave

At each

promotion review

Filed06 22 13

Document442

That Impact

firms I have

Could

built

in

to the

pay

studied

Spread Through Certain

Avenues

Inaccurate

antisolicitation
41

Dr Hallock

was asked

to

agreements could lead to suppression of pay for

all

During

Dr Hallock

testified

of the three avenues

his deposition

avenues

that three

would

necessarily

of

pay

Dep 153 08 15806 214 25 215 11 227 25 230 10

A

Internal Equity is Used by Managers
Decisions

By Comparing

on
I

all

or nearly all class

or nearly all class

each

address

to

his opinion that the

members

are possible but concedes

suppression

lead to impact

explain

Make

that none

members

Hallock

avenue below

Individual Compensation

Similarly Performing Employees

Who Do

Similar

Work
42
all

According

or nearly all class

if

the pay of

it

would be

one

to

Dr

members

individual

inequitable

Hallock

the first avenue

pertains to the application

rises that

would

to raise the pay of

increase

one and

the

by which pay could be suppressed
of internal equity

pay of

not others

14

all

Plaintiffs

other class

Therefore

if

for

claim that

members because

the pay of one

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

individual

suppressed that would suppress the pay of

is

risen This argument

mischaracterizes

43

flawed

the notion

because

labeled

of internal equity

procedural

16

pay for

justice

all

pay

is

perceived

firm follows

its

as a pressure

to equalize

means

pay

Dr Hallock

44

when

be motivated

someone

relevant

is

case

to

but is

by

a concept

establishing

makes

the

same

perceived inputs

their

As a

leading

is

text

especially
principle

individuals

the procedures for setting pay are

firms that

pay

pay

they brought

perceived

is

Newman

The materials

that

Barry Gerhard

differentials

among

employment

if

jobs

possible

satisfaction in
18
Paul

comparing

Dr

eg others

fair

for performance

when

philosophy and

their

more

17
In

justice

for the

other

orkers

will

eg pay

perceived outputs

and unmotivated

same

words what

where

fair

18

individuals
with

W

202

the

been shown to prevail in many settings
is

simple equity

outcomes

According

to

they generate factoring

James

N Baron

David

the equity
in the inputs

M Kreps

87

paid individuals

become depressed

in

McGraw

and

may

his report
Hill Irwin

harbor

ill

lack that zest

also

makes this point George Milkovich

2011

will

One group

argues

toward the employer

and enthusiasm which

that

resist

if fair

e

i

Jerry
sizable

change change

makes for high

efficiency

work

Oyer and Kathryn
distributive

the

does not act

of internal equity

are being paid

performing the task

Hallock relied upon

Compensation

are not

be

1999

Human Resources 107
17

to

and

procedures

e g effort match

commensurate

to bear in

pay for performance

point in his report Hallock

across

same

are paid the

firms or to unionized firms

The notion

justice principle that has

significantly

ought to be rewarded

and so on

effort ability

varies

all

In the first

class In the second definition

technology

based on actual performance

book put it a

where performance

2012

when

to employees is not distributive justice but rather procedural

16

personal

when

to further the

fair

thinks she is being unfairly paid

procedures ensure pay

Strategic

fair

pay would have

notion of internal equity and

traditional

In these workplaces

perceived effort she will become uncomfortable

matters

to

whom

106

of

management world

the

in

to be fair

procedures of paying for performance

strive for fairness

to

be

to

for

Page17

to these Defendants

applied

is

it

within an education tenure

This form of internal equity

specifically to Defendants in this

If

as

others

of an outdated

pay is perceived

distributive justice

the goal is equal

labeled

a

makes use

it

This form of internal equity might be relevant

where

fair

is

all

There are two definitions of internal equity

definition

wage

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Shaw

justice

Reward Systems Human Resource

and procedural

justice in determining

15

Class

pay

Notes Chapter 4 Spring

and

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

45
equity

The evidence

As

performance

current and expected future

managers
reviewed

in

making

contribution

is

not discussed

adjustments to the compensation

needs

inequity

to

46

firm

means

as a

my experience

who

employees in different jobs or workers

to

others

internal

an

including

individuals

considered by individual

is

In the evidence I have

making automatic company wide

of

seen evidence that every

I

be remedied

Moreover from

stated

equity

employees Nor have

of groups of

and based on the evidence

who

reason that internal equity should impact workers

Hallock

Internal

106

of

based on individual

decisions

based on a myriad of factors

to the

Page18

are trained to consider

employee compensation decisions

individual

internal equity

is

that managers

when making pay

to consider

above pay

discussed

shows

in this case

among many

as one factor

Filed06 22 13

Document442

dissimilar

work

jobs at issue

At most he suggested

that

doing similar

work As Dr

on

cold call

would

that

Theyre

That persons
suggest

all

side

by side

Theyre

paid roughly the same

wage increases There

that there is

upward

is

way One

principles

on

pressure

doing roughly

all

of them gets a

of internal equity

others Hallock

the

Dep

upward

on

192 2 8
If

person

the

wages

X doesnt
of the

get the

work crew

there is this idea of internal

R

elated

to internal equity

work would be paid
but lets
less

pressure

raise Hallock
Employee
job

Hallock

Because

people

Dep 202 20 23

I

dont

others

in the

know

if

theyre

doing similar work

get

a

raise

work group than

if

the person did get a

if

one didnt

there

would be

Dep 203 15 22

A in a work

T

work

pressure

concerns is the idea that people doing similar

similarly

on

less

doing similar

theyre

equity

assume that they are So that

upward

sic

job offer there is
if

heyre

group say

there are

two people doing

both doing very similar jobs

one gets a raise because of a cold call
internal equity that another

raise

pay spillover would be limited to similar employees

five people are working

same work

the

Dr

the facts and the comparability of the

explained

Imagine

its

Internal

that

equity

if that

certainly possible because

person would get a

16

raise

no

such as

some employees would cause a

to one or

because of internal equity would be dependent

Hallock

there is

perform at different levels At deposition

an impact

that whether

repeatedly

are doing

this case

in

immediately

if

of
If

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

would be

we

as

Its

me

that there wouldnt
really performing

to

If

were talking

possible

she negotiates

that

would

But

47

Take

and

case

lead to

a chemical

manager

for

E contains

Appendix

example

I

am not

manager

the

Thats

wages

firm that

certainly

among other

things

of people doing

IT support

writers

aware

similar

increases

of

number

of jobs at issue in this

each job

jobs and within job titles

I

title

case and

would

or outside

engineer

hisher employees

manager

or technical

not expect

number

a managers

writer

to maintain internal equity

Class for each Defendant and the

from 2008 2009 Appendix E evidences

the large

of this

compensation of one of his employees would

the full list of job titles in the Technical

within

Class at Intel

specialists semiconductor

of any evidence in this case

or semiconductor

the compensation

of managers

all

19

technical

IT manager who

number

impact

on

to

to a cold call and then

the incumbent

concerns

internal equity

due

it

or identical

the job titles in Plaintiffs proposed Technical

engineers

engineer

to increase

wage in

her

due to

106

of

Dep 240 13 241 7

Hallock

a bump due

gets

same thing

the similar task

immediately get wage changes

same time

designers

that an

to suggest

when one worker

be pressure

the

Page19

Dep 242 14 21

chemical

web

case

this

that there is then pressure

Hallock

which includes

engineers

the

at

suggest

work

about in

with the firm to increase

people near her dont
possible

really doing

theyre

theyre

surprising

concerns

equity
task

and

really identical workers

theyre

Filed06 22 13

Document442

of managers

at each Defendant

consideration

or nearly all other employees in different job titles

the vast

of internal equity

under the supervision

across

to

of different

managers

48

Consistent

with this

Dr

Hallock

not expect to see any impact from internal equity outside

Q

And

Intel
title

A
So

19

employees

that impact the compensation

say mask designer

Again you
they dont

necessarily

AEO xls

Class

it

he would

specialists at

of employees in

a

different job

Intel

are asking about

76586DOC001050
in the Technical

at

that

of a particular job title

then assuming suppressed wages for some IT support

how would
lets

during his deposition

first testified

a narrow

doesnt

Appendix

a narrower

necessarily have

F created

by Job Functions

17

based on

part of whats

on

going

to be the case that the

this

document

categorizes

Intels

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

impact on those particular workers

led to the prediction

avenues

suppressionbecause there are multiple
where

you

coming from So you

are

necessarily have

my prediction

A

Have

I

to

20

I

havent

I

So

I

that there

think

I

so thats

if

could be another

of

106

would be

understand
it

avenue

It

doesnt

that leads to

impact on an

about whether a negative

would

one job

title

havent

that youve

about that But

It

again

in

are asking

Page20

Dep 225 1 14

reached an opinion

job title thing

I

just

thought about

up

brought

made

certainly havent

necessarily

before

impact those
this

specific

in

job

another

a general

to

title

carefully and Id like

to think

about that

opinion

Dep 235 6 13

Hallock

Dr Hallock

49

avenue

that

Hallock

employee would
job title

be

Filed06 22 13

Document442

that propagation happens

from job

12 However Dr Hallock
and simply testified

revised

cites

to

his testimony later in the deposition stating that

title

to job title due to internal equity

no evidence

could occur

that this

to support

this

job

title

possible

its

Dep 258 11

Hallock

to job title propagation

Dep 258 16 22 259 9 15 259 20 22

Hallock

261 2 14

50

I

compensation

across

manager

level

in

to

due

to

that requires automatic

internal equity concerns

Appendix

make decisions

Dr Hallock
for managers

See Figures

in

any evidence

D shows

about individual

To

adjustments to

the contrary

the concept of internal equity

compensation

the evidence

was used

not at the policy

level

12 15

cites

on how

figures from Defendants

to several

to

exercise

their

These figures demonstrate

discretion

first

when

that managers

documents

on

position

within a salary range which

mention of internal equity or any suggestion

another

individual

In other

20
I

to

the

make

containing

giving annual salary increases

were advised

to

give high

performers larger salary increases These figures also show suggested salary increases
dependent

at

pay practices

51
guidelines

of

job titles

each Defendant

regarding

changes

am unaware

discuss the

other

words

avenues

that

is

pegged to market conditions

pay of one individual

is

were

There

is

no

based on the pay of

employees were not paid in relation to each other but were

in detail

below

in sections

18

B through

D

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

paid

in

managers

created

salary ranges based

its

were not advised

managers

manager

team

Dr Hallock

on market data

21

This Figure shows that Adobes

Rather this Figure shows

making pay

testified

that

the

in

Adobe suggested

that a

based on an individuals

determinations

a higher

Q

Would you

for

wouldnt

raise

predict that that

a

call from

cold

would then

that that alone

necessarily predict

alone might not do that So
Based on

after

Apple

Comes in

lead to

a

raise to all or

employees

nearly all technical

53

not necessarily lead to impact

wage Yes

negotiates

Right

would

that internal equity

An Adobe employee gets a

I

Adobes

members

or nearly all class

A

in

106

of

and his her position in relation to the market data

52

A

are paid

his her discretion

is

Page21

employees based on what other employees

to compensate

teams

or other

exercise

performance

all

market For example Figure 15

relation to the

Adobe

Filed06 22 13

Document442

no

my experience

Hallock

would do that

So

that

Dep 189 18 190 2

and the evidence

in

this

case

I

do not expect

that the

concept of internal equity would be a means by which impact on a some employees
compensation

would

21
Streeter
percentile

of the
22

is

at

1855.107

all

containing

instructing

compensation

or nearly all class

the

managers to

Burmeister

created

ranges

members

based

on some spread

e market

Wagner Decl Ex

A at

sample distribution matrices
differentiate

Dep 104 914

based on individual performance

and is in reference to th
23

to

Dep 265 25 266 12 Adobe

Ex 1855

salary increases

over

that

corresponded

to

the

65th

market for a particular job title

drawn and 1855.103

employees

spill

Figure

by performance
14

is

and salary relative

midpoint
11

19

from which

Dr

Hallocks

level in determining

Figure

14

their

an illustration of how Apple

awarded merit

SRP

range

to

market

stands

for salary

position

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

B

Dr Hallocks

Opinion That the Suppression

Code Could Lead to

Dr Hallock

54
all

or nearly all class

Dr

compensation

members

to create

of

and would

106

of

Pay Data

of External

in

One Job

Unsupported

by which pay could be suppressed

avenue

workers

according

that lower

to

Dr Hallock

pay would be

internal

Dep 220 1825

Hallock

cold

if

reported

to

the

data which in

the pay of the benchmarking

suppress

internal salary ranges

benchmark

for

used external market data as benchmarks

Dep 223 8 14 Thus

some groups

like Radford

would be used

Page22

relates to the use of market survey data to

Hallock

calling suppressed the pay of

turn

is

states that each Defendant

for internal compensation

market consultants

Spillover

that the second

testified

Hallock

Filed06 22 13

Document442

See also Hallock

240

55
enough

First

make

to

56
create

it

benchmarked

allegedly

Dr Hallock

25
percentile

Sheehy

it is

most Defendants used

true that

not all Defendants

against

stated during

a large group of firms far

his deposition

that

Pixar

market Streeter

and then

assigns

Decl

Burmeister

26

of the

a job

market data to

benchmarked

he did not examine

the

benchmarking

one two

against

or three with

those firms at all

whether market data

uses the

percentile

included

of the market data as the minimum and the

market for a particular job title Wagner Decl

to

a

pay range

that aligns

Lucasfilm

with the

establish

s the ranges

based on some spread

based

upon our

corresponded

that

78

matches job descriptions

to relevant

percentile

market data for

of the relevant

market survey
that

job

19

Adobes

salary

ranges

based on market data from approximately

25 companies

78
Stubblefield

Dep 24 18
McKell

McKell

26

4

Morris Decl

Wagner Decl

beyond

maximum Otellini Dep 252 34 Intel
Dep 265 25 266 12 Adobe created ranges

Maupin Dep 148 25 149 12
data

significant

Dep 216 18 217 22

Dep 89 916

65th percentile

external

used the same compensation

if it

is

24

market data as the

of the

of the

the market survey results

in

25

imagine that the amount of suppressed cold calling

to

had a cold calling agreement

wages Hallock

suppressed

to the

a difference

internal salary ranges

24

view

hard

Moreover while

data and each

which

is

it

Decl

7

Dep 87 22 24 88 620 89 67
McAdams Decl

Bay Area

13 iii 14

or

Northern California cut of Radford

Lucasfilm

data which

includes

used data from Croner Games for certain technical

20

13

Pixar requests

hundreds of companies
jobs which no Defendant

the

Maupin Decl
participated

in

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Further Pixar and Lucasfilm used the Croner
27

in

Defendants used or participated

Company survey

Moreover defendants

Apple

use the same data slices

not always

Filed06 22 13

Document442

for

Page23

106

of

which none of the other

relied

that

on

same surveys

the

did

example

.28

29

against

outside

57

Silicon

Even assuming

codes due to the alleged
between

Valley data

job

benchmarked

generally

Intel

30

that there is suppression of pay for the external data in

anticompetitive

codes Taking Adobe

as an

conduct

pay

this

example every

range based on market survey data for similar jobs

31

would not

suppression

job code

Adobe has

at

some

job

over

spill

a distinct

salary

That is Adobe used job specific market

data and thus suppression of market data for one job code would not affect the salary range for

codes This

other job

is

true for other Defendants

as well

32

Thus

suppressed data

for

one

job

continued

2011

Burmeister Decl

from 2005

to

companies

which

included

defendants

in

case

27
participates

this

See
in

Stubblefield

McKell

employees

Streeter

32

job by job
McKell
for

all

which

it

Decl

8 14 see

showing

also

Class

is

McKell 181 19182 13 Appendix

were employed

Dep 265 25 266 12 Adobe

Dep 49 1720
basis Wagner Decl

87 22 24 89 67

created

outside

ranges

Intel has

Pixar

the

of

peer

only other defendant

that

of silicon

based

G shows

a vast majority of

that

Valley

on some spread

that

corresponded

to

the

65th

reviews

the

survey data and determines

as

pay

minimum and maximumpay on

8

very broad salary ranges

that are established

a particular grade but also internally benchmarks

refers to

Lucasfilm

list

and Intel are

market for a particular job title

Sheehy

jobs in

1308

Google

Dep 24 18

in the Technical

31
of the

a

only two of which

Dep 164 18 165 3

29

percentile

used

Croner Animation survey

Burmeister

Intels

Apple

twenty other companies

e g McAdams Dep 60 913 Ex

the

28

30

4

approximately

lines Maupin Dep 148 25 149 12
range

market survey data and then assigns a job to a pay

21

by

grade

e they have one

i

pay against a smaller more jobspecific
Lucasfilm matches job descriptions

to

range

range

relevant

a

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

title

would

title

affect the salary range for another

job

not affect data for another

58

When Dr

unable to explain

how

Hallock

examines whether each of

Dep 90 20 91 9

18
Intel

The

types

felt its

could respond with an

60
a change

several

for managers

SMA

to

for

a

targeted

to

Dr Hallock

move

McKell

job and

individuals salaries are adjusted

Intel

a special market

33

McKell

was

market position

the fact that a change

the

if

deteriorating

Intel

employees To

all

to

the contrary the testimony of

that individuals salaries

the salary ranges

by managers

in salary range does not lead

34

As

do not

detailed earlier in the report

based on performance

McKell Dep 269 6

Dep 269 619

19
34

24 422

Arriada Keiper

it

becomes

Dep 23 24 25 Adobe

managers

range Maupin Dep 94 24 95 8
does

Dep 206 15

limited to jobs where

is

33

it

annually

Dep 92 14 16 206 12 18 Thus

Intels

the

in

those particular jobs

ignores

because of changes

Hallocks

that any changes

gives

Intel

vary by year and by group and

particular

affect salary

the midpoint of the pay line

to

use for those specific jobs

Defendants compensation personnel confirmed

automatically

good example

level rather than at a company level

title

compensation levels for

in actual

another

For job codes that are below market

SMA

Moreover

data for one job code could

limited to particular job titles

market position was deteriorating

faster

106

during his deposition he was

this fact

job codes are being paid relative

of jobs that receive

market was moving

to

its

SMA budget

adjustment

is

use of market data provides

market would be dealt with on a job

McKell

to consider

Dep 229 11 232 233 21 23513 Thus Dr

opinion of impact based on market data

Intels

of

job title

was asked

Hallock

Page24

nor would suppressed salary range for one job

title

suppressed market compensation

ranges for other job codes

59

Filed06 22 13

Document442

not directly

discretion

stating that

lead to individual salary

performance McAdams Dep 29

810

Dep 55 13 19
Apple
hard maximums Those are purely a
Burmeister

employees

were permitted

to

fall

Pixar

for

if

reference
salary

to

go up do salaries increase

the ranges
raise a

Lucasfilm

increases

sub minimum

while

the

because such

employee

salary ranges

below

Q

on whether

offers

are reference

point Ex

market
salary

salary

up

may cause

increases

and salaries are

the

range

A No Id
minimum
structure

are based on

usually

points Theyre

391 76583DOC003753

theyre

within
not

Intels

ranges Wagner Dep 26 22 25 29 1521

22

to

increases

their

that salary
hard

at

in the

range

minimums

or

documents show that

its

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

61
this

Similar to

avenue

second

Dr

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Hallocks

avenue of

first

need not propagate to

all

propagation

or nearly all class

Page25

of

Dr Hallock

members

106

conceded

Hallock

that

Dep

227 25 22813

C

Dr Hallocks
Is

members

is

percentage

Hallock

benchmark

companys

individual

a

their

63

merit increase

I

am not

aware

percentages was suppressed

basic

all

64

or nearly all class

or nearly all class

to

issue in this

calls

to the extent

due

to

a

suppression

of

an
of merit

states that the suppression

data

on base

or that suppressed data resulted in impact

at

Dr Hallock

case

it

the alleged

is

hard

salary increase

on
to

all

or nearly all class

imagine as a matter of

antisolicitation agreements

the market data

further assuming market data

at

all

members

of any evidence that market

Assuming each Defendant based

would not

According

Dr Hallock

percentage

mathematics that the lack of cold

Managers

impact

of the market data will lead to

Given the vast labor markets

would have suppressed

this

that could

based on market data of other companies

merit increases

suppression

percentage could affect

members

avenue

third

Dep 230 14 231 8 249 20 250 4

merit increase

projected

a

that

states

through Defendants use of market data to benchmark the annual merit increase

that Defendants

increase

Also Unsupported

Dr Hallock

62

Opinion Regarding Market Data For Merit Increase Budgets

was

its

merit increase

in fact suppressed due to the alleged

lead to the suppression

of compensation

each of the Defendants had discretion

allocate the merit increase

percentage on market data and

budget as they saw

fit

anticompetitive

for all or nearly all class

conduct

members

within company suggested guidelines to

based on

their

performance

evaluations

35

continued

35

performance

Morris Decl

22

Adobe managers

allocated

the

evaluations Wagner Dep 108 19 23

23

budget among employees

after

completing the

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

a

Therefore

reduction

Page26

106

of

budget could affect top performers but need not

the merit increase

in

Filed06 22 13

Document442

affect all performers

65

Moreover evidence from

discouraged giving merit increases

Defendants maintained

compensation

lower performing employees As referenced

to

merit increase

decisions

Defendants indicates that these companies

several

for their managers

guidelines

See Hallocks

12 15

Figures

above
when making

as a guidepost

For example Figure 12 to

Dr

Hallocks

report demonstrates that
36

Dep 276 4 8
performance

been higher

not suggest

there

affected

but

in

Hallock

would be workers

that

that

Thus

instance

on

the fringe

that all or nearly all employees

who

would have

their

a managers

agreements

wage wouldnt

more

would have

merit budget

the evidence I have

received

Hallock

have very very low

that circumstance

in

to the extent

anti solicitation

for the alleged

admitted this during his deposition

wouldnt

rating or very high in range

be

wouldnt

So

Dr

reviewed does

any merit

or

increase

continued

Sheehy

how they

employees

see

Dep 70 24 25

fit McKell

Pixar

managers are

given

pool and they spend that pool on their

a salary

Dep 101 817
Chau Dep 138 20 140 6 Lucasfilm

managers and executives

make recommendations

would

very seldom made adjustments

and i

in their discretion

t’s

Apple

to

choose how they want to

managers were responsible
36

depending

See Hallocks

Dep 32 14 21

Stubblefield

12

Figure

on their preadjustment

where employees

position

pay

compensation

for setting

for

Burmeister

each employee

for

Recommendations

employees

document

philosophy
budgetary

unsatisfactory and

rated

0

2

Apple

wasn’t
of

employees

for

managers were not required

employee
to give

all

performing well he or she may not warrant

pay for performance

which

means

year does not mean you are necessarily

that

may not

not

awarded

employees

to get an

increase

who were

increase spreadsheet

struggling

might not get any salary increase

from 2006 containing

raises ranging

from

24

Individual

salary increase

merit increase

increase

increase

James
in

Ex

25 to

2007 Merit

LUCAS189964
or

merit salary increases

bonus

rather

Dep 25 22 25

at

Stubblefield

an

Intel has

Decl

Ex A

at

Dep 169 22170 3

9
Pixar

1304 PIX00044225 44229 Pixars salary

0

0

Arriada Keiper

69

Burmeister

if

a certain year in a tight

Sheehy
employees

Chau

decisions

and bonus budgets of

improvement

being an average performer

going

receive

Pay for Performance

of salary

needs

rated

a merit

compensation

Dep 47 16 19 53 23 54 1
in their groups

Lucasfilms

was

the

Googles

Review recommended allocations

confirms that low performing Lucasfilm

Dep 48 1523
individual

Executive

make

with a rating of 3.4 or below

Wagner Dep 109 16 19
LUCAS0062293

Budget

managers

Intuit

Ms

bonuses and merit increases and

for individual

Dep 75 16 18

a

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

D

Dr Hallocks Top

66

According

workers

to

the

has

to

do with

high end top

compensation

Hallock

37

says

Dr Hallock

of the cold calling restrictions

His theory

or the compensation

This theory finds no basis

compensation systems outside

Hallocks

pay can be lowered for nearly all

is

top of the

that if the

were targeted

box

theory

to

work when

employee in one job

for the lower performing

employees may be

the

title

the

in

Defendants compensation systems Nor have

of this case that

companies

increase

company would have

would

support

this

the compensation

to increase

for

theory

a

For

employees in that job

look

at

Plus for

title

the compensation

the compensation

organization

below

Dr Hallock
where

them

discussed

above

207

managers

evidence that managers

theory and automatically

compensation

recognizes

the documents

hands of individual

structure

his

increased

There

and

across

to

is

scale help determine

no such evidence

testimonies

based on

their

show

Hallock

the

of lesser

others

within

between

all

company would then need
them upward

in this

works only with

to

case of which

that pay determinations

their

rigid

approach

team because the

25

targeted

I

of those

were

needed under

top

to an

am aware

performance

left

in the

There

Dr

As

is

no

Hallocks

employees

simply to maintain the same relative compensation

207 229 239

respect

the relative gains

assessment of individual

were trained to undertake the

move

box theory

Adobes compensation personnel was asked whether Adobe

37

work

Dr

job titles

top of the

a pay

those at the top of

Hallock

theory

of all employees in other job titles and adjust

maintain the same compensation

68

Dr Hallocks

I

top performing

performing employees to maintain the same differentials or relative compensation

to

or the

performing employees was lowered in the presence of cold calling

for the highest

box

Some

106

of

Is Incorrect

way that

another

Page27

well

as

67
studied

Box Theory

of the

top workers

the

talent

restrictions the entire

lowered

Dr

to

Filed06 22 13

Document442

For example

when

a particular percentage

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

in compensation

difference

Ms

managers

in

ArriadaKeiper

Not

testified

job title spans

for each job title at each Defendant

Adobes Computer

a specific

shows

2005

firm from

Software

Scientist

a coordinated rigid approach

seen any evidence that this

affect other job titles

Such adjustments would be

2009 To

I

number

the

of

give a few examples

3 had 258 managers

Intels

have not seen any evidence that

within a job

would then be

approach

rigid

anagers

Hardware Engineer 7 had 274

Intels

managers

across

to

Developer

Product Manager had 110 managers

Intuits

M

percentage

many managers Appendix E shows

Component Design Engineer 7 had 1,074 managers
managers and

106

of

Dep 111 13 25

ArriadaKeiper

Moreover each

that time period

Page28

between

ultimately have the discretion

69

Filed06 22 13

Document442

applied

Furthermore

title

outside

have not

I

of the job title

the antithesis to an individualized

and

pay for

38

performance system

70

During

for a particular job code

minimum makes up

that is the salary

the bottom

contend that but for the alleged

received

cold

Report

would have

calls

Dr Hallock

deposition

of the

maximum makes up

box

conspiracy

Hallock

box refers to
the top of the

the salary ranges

box and

Dep 278 7 279 9 Dr Hallock

employees

at

the top of the salary range

which would cause the box to

This theory

Defendants
individual

salary ranges

inaccurate

is

Fredrik

Andersson

Matthew

within the

higher
variance

high payoff

performance
of

product

pay

markets

Id 35

pay in software

2007

21
39

T

he

wages

See supra

will select

both across

of highly

footnote

Industries

The high pay

Economics The Economists View

of

like other companies

appears

to

would have

grow

Hallock

firms

star

company

Economic

am familiar with

39

Thus an

Julia

Journal

individuals

compensation

Lane Kathryn Shaw

2009 4

Firms that

Reaching

operate

for the

in

workers and will pay stars both higher starting salaries and

that innovating

and within

Human Resources

skilled

I

based purely on market survey data not on

Freedman John Haltiwanger

Stars Who Pays for Talent in Innovative
innovative

because

boxes were

or the

compensation increases

38

a raise

the salary

229

71

received

that the

testified

firms offer top

firmsEdward
Journal

star workers have grown

25

26

of

knowledge

workers increases the

Lazear and Kathryn

Economic

Perspectives

relative to the typical

Shaw

vol 21

employee

Personnel

4

Fall

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

movement

within

company does

the

Moreover because

data

movement

72
conspiracy

individuals

as explained

compensation

personnel

salary ranges nor

73
of situations

compensation To

actual

do

when

confirmed

Dr

a firm decides

move

106

grows based on market

pegged to the market by job

higher

but for the alleged

the testimony of several

salaries are not required

because of changes

box theory

top of the

retain an

to

of

move

of the salary range does not automatically

that individual

Hallocks

Page29

move

to

would have been

the contrary

salaries automatically

Nor does

box

the salary ranges

above movement

box only

the

boxes are

or the

not cause another

Even assuming

box

not alter the

the salary ranges

box does

of one

Filed06 22 13

Document442

employee by

Defendants

to

fit

within the
40

to the range

have any application

increasing

all

wages

to

a

number

other than base

onetime
salary For example

Dr Hallock

firm decides

an employee

equity

bonus

IX

to

to retain

grant or a

retain

one time

an employee

it

does not offer an opinion

by promoting

bonus

would

Dr

him

Hallock

to

a

that

top of the

if

a Defendant

a

not give every employee

applies

when

a

position or by giving a

higher

agrees that

box

raise

gave a retention

Hallock

Dep 137 17 21

Conclusion

Dr Hallock

does not show that a suppression

caused by the alleged

conspiracy

would have

Based on Defendants compensation
expect that a suppression

of

wages

to

affected

systemspay

of

wages

all

to

some employees

or nearly all Technical

practices

and pay philosophy

some employees would

affect

all

June

40

See supra

footnote

34

27

21

Shaw Ph
2013

Class

I

members

would

not

or nearly all Technical

Class members

Kathryn

allegedly

D

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Reference

Guide

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page30

of

106

to Cited Exhibits

Exhibit

76586DOC001050

Location

AEO xls

Attached as

in record

6 21 13 Decl

Ex 24

to the

Ex 17

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Ex 14

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Ex 21

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Ex 23

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Ex 19

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Declaration

of Daniel

McKell

Attached as

ISO
Declaration

of

Donna Morris

Attached as

ISO
Declaration

of Frank

Wagner

of Lori

McAdams

of

Mason

of Michelle

Maupin

of Steven

Opp

Attached as

ISO
Declaration

Opp

Attached as

Stubblefield

ISO
Declaration

Opp

Attached as

ISO
Declaration

Opp

Attached as

ISO
Declaration

Opp

Burmeister

Attached as

ISO

Ex 22

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Ex 16

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Opp
Opp

Excerpts from the Deposition of Alvaro Gonzalo

Attached as

Alvarez

Ex 23

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 13

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 14

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn

Excerpts from the Deposition of

Bob

Mansfield

Attached as

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Brian Croll

Attached as

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Chris Galy

Attached as

Ex FF to 510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of

Dan

Attached as

Batali

Ex 22

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Daniel McKell

Attached as

Ex 8

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Darrin Baja

Attached as

Ex

I

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of Deborah Conrad

Attached as

Ex 16

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Deborah Streeter

Attached as

Ex 1

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Digby Horner

Attached as

Ex 11

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Donna Morris

Attached as

Ex 6

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 3

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of FrankWagner

Attached as

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Jan

Van

der Voort

Attached as

Kahn

28

Ex 19

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Excerpts from the Deposition of Kevin Hallock

Filed06 22 13

Attached to the

Page31

621 13

of

106

Decl

of Christina

Brown
Excerpts from the Deposition of Laszlo Bock

Attached as

Ex 15

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 20

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Lori Beck

Attached as

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Lori

McAdams

Attached as

Ex SS

to

5 10 13 Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of Mason Stubblefield

Attached as

Ex 7

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Micheline

Chau

Attached as

Ex 10

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Michelle Maupin

Attached as

Ex 5

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Paul Otellini

Attached as

Ex DD

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of Renee James

Attached as

Ex AA

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of Richard Bechtel

Attached as

Ex J

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of Rosemary Arriada

Attached as

Keiper

Ex 9

6 21 13 Decl

Kahn

Excerpts from the Deposition of Sharon

Coker

Attached as

to the

Ex 18

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Sherry Whiteley

Attached as

Ex JJ

to

5 10 13 Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of Shona Brown

Attached as

Ex S

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Excerpts from the Deposition of Stephanie Sheehy

Attached as

Ex 4

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 2

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Steven Burmeister

Attached as

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of Steven Condiotti

Attached as

Ex 17

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 12

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 21

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn
Excerpts from the Deposition of

Tim Cook

Attached as

Kahn
Excerpts from the March

19

2013 Deposition

of

Lynwen Brennan
Exhibit

1158

ADOBE

Attached as

Kahn
005661

Attached as

Ex 1158

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

1159

ADOBE

019278

Attached as

Ex 1159

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

1160

ADOBE

009652

Attached as

Ex 1160

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

1304 PIX0004422544229

Attached as

Kahn

29

Ex 27

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Exhibit

1308

Exhibit

1309 PIX00049648

Exhibit

1855

Exhibit

1861 231APPLE105542

Exhibit

216

Exhibit

2425

Document442

Pixar Salary

Analysis

Filed06 22 13

Attached as

Page32

Ex 1308

of

106

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Attached as

Ex 1309

ISO Supp Class
Declaration

of Steven

Burmeister

Attached as

Ex 1855

ISO Supp Class
Attached as

Ex 28

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn

ADOBE

050724

Attached as

Ex 216

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class

GOOGHIGH TECH

00625147

Attached as

Ex 2425

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

2501

ADOBE

009425

Attached as

Ex 2501

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

2739 INTUIT 043560

Attached as

Ex 2739

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

2740 INTUIT 052841

Attached as

Ex 2740

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

391 76583DOC003888

Attached as

Ex 391

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

to

510 13

Cisneros Decl

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

398 76579DOC005956

Attached as

Ex 398

ISO Supp Class
Exhibit

A to

the Declaration

of Frank

Wagner

Attached as

ISO
Exhibit

B to

the Declaration

of Frank

Wagner

Exhibits

to

the Declaration

of

Donna Morris

INTUIT 018387
INTUIT 043603

Brown Decl

Ex 21

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Ex 14

to

1112 12

Brown Decl

Opp

Attached as
to

1112 12

Opp

Attached as

ISO

to

Opp

Attached as

ISO

Ex 21

11 12 12

Attached as

Ex B to

Stubblefield

Brown Decl ISO

Ex 30

to the

Decl Ex 19

Opp

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn

INTUIT

038812

Attached as
to

LUCAS00062271

11 12 12

Attached as

Ex A

to

Stubblefield

Brown Decl ISO

Decl Ex 19

Opp

Ex 29

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 26

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Ex 25

to the

6 21 13 Decl

of Lin

Kahn

LUCAS00189964 69

Attached as

Kahn

LUCAS0062293

Attached as

Kahn

30

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page33

of

106

APPENDIX A
CURRICULUM

VITAE

KATHRYN SHAW

Home

Office

868 Lathrop Drive
Palo Alto

Graduate

CA 94305

650 8045879

School

Business

of

Stanford University

cell

Stanford

CA 94305 5015

650 7254168
650 7259932 fax
kathryns gsb

http

edu

stanford

www nber org cgi binsearch family2

pl

CURRENT POSITION

C Arbuckle

Ernest

Graduate

School

2003

Professor of Economics

of

present

Business

Stanford University

PREVIOUS ACADEMIC APPOINTMENTS
Graduate

School

Administration

of Industrial

GSIA

Carnegie Mellon University

Ford Distinguished

2002 2003
1997 2003

Chair Professor of Economics

Research

Professor of Economics
Associate Professor

of

Economics with Tenure

1994 1997

Associate Professor

of

Economics

1989 1994

Assistant

1981 1989

Professor of Economics

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT
of Economic

Council

Member

Advisors

Senate confirmed

Washington

Executive Office of the President

June

2000

1999 2001

DC

AFFILIATIONS

IZA

Research

Fellow

Research

Associate

2012
Research

Research

Fellow Center

for

Economic

and Policy Research

Research

Fellow Center

for

Corporate

Performance

NBER
CEPR

CCP Denmark

present

2004

present

2004

London

present

1995

Germany

National Bureau of Economic

present

EDUCATION
Harvard

University

Occidental

AB
RESEARCH

College

Economics

Ph D

Economics

Los Angeles

1981
1976

California

Mathematics

STATEMENT

Insider

Econometrics Modeling

Management Practices and

Productivity

http www nberorg reporter2009number4 shaw html

NBER

Reporter 2009

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page34

of

106

HONORS
Graduate

School

2011 2012

Business Trust Faculty Fellow

of

Fellow Society of Labor Economists
Graduate
Special

School

Award

Sustained Teaching

for

CMU Business

School

Teaching

Award

Xerox Research

for

GSIA

of Economics Teaching

University Graduate

Phi Beta

Kappa Magna cum laude

Graduate

in

2001
1998

Institutions

1992 1993

Award

1992

1976 1979

Student Fellowship
Departmental

Honors

in

Economics

Mathematics Occidental College

Verdugo

Valedictorian

2003

1999 2000 2002

Carnegie Mellon University

Harvard

4.0

CMU

Business

International

Best Paper on Employment

Chair

CMU Department

Economics Department

Excellence

Award Commendation

Columbia University Best Paper on
Minnesota

2008

2005 2006

Business Trust Faculty Fellow

of

Hills

Year

Distinguished

1976

High School

1972

HONORARY LECTURES
Occidental

College

125th

Women

Distinguished

in

Economics

Alumni Speaker

Washington

2012

2012

University

Keynote speaker Society of Labor Economists
Guest Lecturer

Adam

Smith Lecture

on Education

Do

2009
2008

Training and the Evolving

Workplace

2006

Vancouver Canada

Bertha Leigh Memorial Lecture
Sloan

2012

What Do CEOs

Labor Economics Association

European

Keynote Address Conference

TARGET

PO

University of Paris Science

National

Defense

Washington

State

2005

University

Keynote address Atlanta

Industry Studies

University

University Address

2004
Washington

DC

2004

OTHER PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Carnegie Mellon University

Heinz School

of Public Policy Carnegie Mellon University

Department

Head

Department

Head Economics

Board

of

Industrial

Governors

Visiting

Department

Head Tutor

1987 1990
1989

DC

1984 1986
Cambridge Massachusetts

1978 1981

Economics

in

Cambridge Massachusetts

Center for Policy Alternatives

1977 1979

of Technology

Massachusetts

Institute

Research

Economist

Staff

1996 2003

Washington

Federal Reserve

University

Assistant

Faculty

Acting

Economist

Harvard

of the

Management Department

Affiliated

2

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page35

of

106

EDITOR AND PROFESSIONAL PANEL
Board Member Society
Bureau

of

Labor

STEP Board

National

Technical

Academy of

Committee

Advisory

Science

Outside Review

Panel Hass School

The Conference

of Business

of

2007 2009
2008 2009

Working Group

2006 2008

Labor Economists

John Dunlop Award Committee Labor and Employment

Relations

2006 2008

Associations

2003 2011
1999 2001 2008

Associate Editor Review of Economics and Statistics

Associate

Editor

Journal

Labor Economics

of

Outside Review

Panel Management and Strategy

Outside Review

Panel Economics Research

NSF

Advisory

Journal

School Northwestern

Kellogg

Department Chicago

2005

1997 1999 2001 2003
Academic Research

Science

1997 1999 2001 2003

Committee

co chair

Economics Subsection

of Regional

2006

University

Federal Reserve

Panel

American Compensation Association

IRRA Labor

2009

University of California Berkeley

HR Research
AEA CSWEP

Committee chair

Mincer Award Committee Society

2008 2010

Economic Perspectives

of

Board Evidence Based

Bennett Award

2013present
2011present
2011present

Labor Economists

Board Member Journal

Advisory

Editorial

of

Statistics

1996 1999
1994 1997

Associate Editor

RESEARCH GRANTS
Alfred

P Sloan

Advanced

Role

Foundation
Differences

International

Capitalist

the

Business

Countries January

Principal

Alfred

in

P Sloan

20032009

of

Productivity

Multinational

Firms

in

1,000,000

Freeman

with Richard

Investigator

and

Practices

Foundation

Firms Workers

Quality

Implications

2003 December 2005

January

and Workforce

90,000

principal

and Economic

Earnings Inequality

for

Abowd

John

investigators

John

Growth

Haltiwanger

Julia

Lane

Role

with Limor Golan to study the software industry

subcontract

Alfred

P Sloan

Advanced

Role

Foundation

Officers

Differences

International

Capitalist

Principal

in

the

Planning Grant

Business

Countries June 2002

and

Practices

December 2002

with Richard Freeman Martin

Investigator

of

Productivity

Multinational

Firms

in

45,000

Feldstein

Russell Sage Foundation

The Impact

of

Workplace

August 1999 September

Role

P Sloan

Role

Demand

for

Less Skilled

Labor

Ann

Bartel Casey Ichniowski

of

Human

Resource

Management

Practices

in the Steel

Industry June 1994

December

700,000
Principal

with Casey Ichniowski

Investigator

Science

Effects

US and
Role

on the

Foundation

National

The

Innovations

300,000

with

Investigator

The Impact

2002

2002

Principal

Alfred

and Technological

Foundation

of Participatory

Japanese

Principal

Firms

Investigator

Human

January

Resource

1995

Management

April 1999

with Casey Ichniowski

3

350,000

Practices

on

Productivity

and Quality

in

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page36

106

of

of Labor

Department

The Impact

HRM

of

1997
Role

Principal

An

on Performance

Practices

International

Perspective October

1994

August

76,000

Science

National

Foundation

The Dynamics

Role

of

Franchise Contracting October

Investigator

P Sloan
Impact

Human

of

Principle

W E Upjohn

for

Human

for

Role

1995

Family

of

98,000

headed about

I

Practices

in

the

Global

Steel

216,000

Management component

Research

Income and Wealth January 1991

June

1992

30,000

Investigator

Science

1989

and Labor Relations

to project

Resource

Employment

Distribution

Foundation

Empirical Analysis of the Effects
January

Management

1994 Award

investigator

Principal

National

Resource

June

Institute

The Changing

Role

October

Foundation

Industry June 1991

Role

1993

with Francine Lafontaine

Principal

Alfred

The

with Casey Ichniowski

Investigator

of

Risk Aversion

on the Investment in

Human Capital

June 1987

27,000

Principal

Investigator

Social Impact of Information and Robotics Technology
Carnegie Mellon University

1984
Role

Principal

supporting

work on

Individual

Adjustment

to

Structural

Change

1983

20,000

Doctoral

Investigator

Grant US Department

Dissertation

of Labor

1980 1981

TEACHING EXPERIENCE

MBA Courses
Contemporary Economic Policy

Stanford University

2003

present

Making Data Relevant
Data Driven Human Resource
Managing

Strategy

Talent

Entrepreneurship

from the Perspective of

Human

Management

Resource

Productivity

and Incentives

Women

pre term with Garth Saloner

280 281 289
Ed Lazear

Strategy

with

Macroeconomics
Internal

Carnegie Mellon University

1981 2003

Strategy of Firms

Topics in Labor Market Analysis

The Changing Global Environment

and the Wealth of Nations

Undergraduate Courses
Managing

in the

Information

Markets Incentives

Economy

Carnegie Mellon University

1981

and Value

Labor Economics
Labor and Manpower

4

present

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Page37

of

106

and Labor Relations

Industrial

Macroeconomics

Intermediate

US Labor
Ph D

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Harvard

Policies

1978 1980

University

Courses
Personnel Economics
Doctoral

Seminar

in

Stanford University

Labor Economics

2004

present

Carnegie Mellon University

1984

Education

Executive

CoDirector

GSB Summer Institute
Sloan

HR

2004

present

2006

present

Program

Citigroup Executive

Program

Executive

Executive Program

Alumni Weekend

Events

STUDENT SUPERVISION
Sara Champion

Thesis advisors

James Liang Brianna

chair Chris Stanton

chair

Cardiff

Head Education Dept Stanford Anna
Committee Head Economics Dept Stanford Kelly

Outside Committee

Mastri

Outside

Russell

Ph

D

Thesis Chairman

Zili

Linda Christie Giovanna

PUBLICATIONS

A Personnel
Policy Review

Insider

Journal

for

and

Who

the Stars

Output

Does

Process

for

The
21

122

4

Counts

Opportunity

Targeting

Economic Journal

1986 2003

with Edward

Lazear Nordic Economic

Fall

View

1

Incentive

of

Labour Economics

2009

Industries with Fredrik Andersson Matthew

15

2008 710 724

Human Resources

with

Edward Lazear

Journal

of

2007 91114
Productivity

Plant Level

Comparisons of Product Innovation

Skills with Ann Bartel and Casey Ichniowski

Quarterly

Journal

of

November 2007 17211758
Teams

Journal

Managerial

Economics 36

Carnegie Mellon University

Fields

2009

Lazear Labour Economics

Economists

4

Way

Talent in Innovative

Lane

Improvement and Worker

Casey Ichniowski

Beyond

pays

Julia

Information Technology affect

Economics

Practices

with Stops Along the

with Edward

Economic Perspectives

How

Renee

Enhancement

to Productivity

A Roadmap

Economics

Personnel

Mary Ellen Benedict

2 2011

Freedman John Haltiwanger

Tenure

Gant

Brent Boning Jonathon

Articles

Economics Approach

Econometrics

Reaching

Zhuang

Prennushi

2006
2005

Control

Spring

Pay

and

the

Effectiveness

of Labor Economics

Evidence

25

of

Production

Incentives

with

Boning and

Brent

2007 613 650

from Franchising

with Francine

Lafontaine Rand

Journal

of

2005 131 150

Insiders Estimates

with Casey Ichniowski Journal

of the Value of Complementary

Human

1

Winter

of Economic

5

Perspectives

17

Resource

Management

2003 155178

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Capital and Organizational Change

Social
with

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Jon Gant and Casey Ichniowski

in

High

Journal

and

Involvement

Page38

Work

Traditional

Economics and Management

of

of

106

Organizations

2 Summer

11

Strategy

2002 289 328
Change and Wage

Industrial

Shore Sheppard

The

Dynamics

Political

UK
The

Human

of

Effects

of

Effects

forthcoming

Claude Menard

Resource

Human

Systems

Economics

Personnel

in

Ltd

Edward Elgar Publishing

and

Pensions

Wage Premia

Growth

Franchising

Lafontaine Journal

of

Old Dogs

and

New

Casey Ichniowski

Risk

of

Tricks

The Impact of Pension

Persistence

The

Elgar Publishing

of

Library

Ltd

of the

New

forthcoming

Comparison of

International

Lazear

and Robert

Montgomery Economic

U S and

Japanese

Casey Ichniowski

with

McNabb Eds

Special

and

Cheltenham

UK

Growth

of the Adoption

of

35 July

Myth

1997 510522

and Reality

Journal

Labor Economics

of

Work

of Productivity Enhancing

Earned Income

with

Francine

1997

on Franchising

Issue

and Income

Inquiry

US Market

Papers on Economic Activity Microeconomics

48 July

Eds Cheltenham

Waterson

International

1997 291 313

June

P

Edward

in

on Productivity

Practices

86

Benefits on the Distribution

and Labor Relations Review

The Life Cycle

Aversion

Determinants

Brookings

of

May 1999 704722

45

Entry and Exit in the

Business Venturing

An Empirical Analysis
1996 626653

Journal

forthcoming

with Edward

and Franchiser

An

on Productivity

Management

Resource

and

Ed UK Edward

Giovanna Prennushi American Economic Review
Reprinted

with Francine Lafontaine

Paul Joskow and Michael

Organization

Plants with Casey Ichniowski Management Science

The

Beeson and Lara

with Patricia

2001 466 483

Data

from Panel

Evidence

Ltd

Elgar Publishing

Economics

Institutional

Industry

Steel

Review 54 March

1999 1041 1080

October

Empirical Industrial

in

Edward

from the

Evidence

Relations

Franchise Contracting

of

Economy 107

Reprinted

Inequality

and Labor

Industrial

1995

with Mary

14

October

Practices

with

165
Ellen Benedict

Industrial

1995 740757

Female Labor Supply Journal

of

Human Resources 29

Spring

1994 348

378
The
and

Distribution

Income and Benefits

of Family

Mary

with

Unanticipated

Aggregate

Disturbances

and Tests

of

the

Life Cycle Labor Supply of Married

Economic Inquiry 30 October

and Wages

Pensions
Benedict

The

International

Effects

November

Ohio Journal

of

Economics

LifeCycle Consumption Model Using Panel Data

with Randall Mariger Review of Economics and Statistics

The

Ellen Benedict

1994

Politics

of

Skill

An

Women

and

its

75

February

1993 4856

Implications for Household

Income Inequality

1992 659672

Hedonic

Price

Theory Approach

Economics Review 33 February

Investment

on Migration

and

1991 397 416

6

with Edward

Montgomery

and

Mary

Ellen

1992 111128

Industry

Change

Journal

of

Regional

Science

31

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Intertemporal Labor Supply and the Distribution

Income

of Family

Page39

of

106

Review of Economics and

Statistics

71

May 1989 196205
Life Cycle

Supply with Human

Labor

1989 431456
Wage Variability in the 1970 s
71 February 1989 2636
Disaggregate

May

30

Statistics

Montgomery Economic

with Edward

Relationship

Review

Review of Economics and

Cyclical Sensitivity

or

WageEmployment

Estimates of the Real

Men

The Quit Propensity of Married

Journal

5

Labor Economics

of

Change Employer Change and

Occupational

the Transferability

of

1987 533 560

October

Skills Southern

Economic Journal

54

1987 702719

January

Term Contracts

Economics

A Formulation

of

and Wage

Expectations

16 September

PUBLICATIONS

the Earnings Function

Using

Journal

of

Monetary

Concept

the

of Occupational

Investment

Journal

Human

of

Articles in Books

Econometrics Empirical Studies of

Insider

Montgomery

with Edward

Inertia

1985 209226

19 Summer 1984 319 340

Resources

of

Shifts

Economic

International

1988 241246

Letters 26

Long

Sectoral

Accumulation

Capital

Organizational Economic

How

Robert

editors

Matters

Management

Gibbons

and John Roberts

with Casey Ichniowski

Handbook

University Press

Princeton

2013

263311
Zooming

Hannaway

with

editors Creating

Online

Jobs

Out

and Zooming

in

Management

Resource

with

a

Wages

Structure

Perspective

International

Bureau of Economic

Editor

Urban

Profession

Wright

School

Dan

Freeman Amanda

Richard

Human

District

and Jane

Goldhaber

Press 2009

Institute

International

Structure

Edward

Edward

with

Lazear 2008

and Kathryn

Lazear

Shaw

in

Adoption and Impact

the

Industry in the

Differences

Shaw

in the Business

New

K
of

US and U

Department

Value

of

of

August 2006

The

Pyman
Bureau

Structure

University

Practices

University of Chicago National

Wages and Mobility An Overview

Information

with

Ann

Studies of

of

Economic

of

of

Wages An

Chicago

National

Bureau

with Edward

of

Trade and Industry London April 2006

Innovative

HRM

Practices

in

7

and

New HR

of Firms

Economic

Lazear
to

in

Ricardo

Editors Richard

Research

Alex Bryson and

Policy DTI

JForth

Economics Paper

927

eds Edward

227240

Technologies

Bartel Casey Ichniowski

and Productivity

and Catherine Barber Making Linked Employer Employee Data Relevant

The

in

in

David Autor University of Chicago National

and Mobility
Editor

The Valve Making

Freeman and Kathryn

Wage

Teaching

Dysfunction

of

Patrick

Research 2009

Differences

International

Correa

Conspiracy

2009

Research

Practices

New

the

DeArmond and

Nakamura Emi Nakamura

Alice

Labor Market Intermediation

Wage

Rethinking

Michael

Lawler and James OToole

Work

in America

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Human

The

Stern Innovation

Is

it

Economy Chicago

Policy and the

Driver

a Productivity

University

in

Page40

Adam

Jaffe

Josh

Chicago National

of

106

of

Lerner and Scott

Bureau of Economic

2003 69114

Research

New

Revolution

Resources

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Technology

Manufacturing

and

Impact on the Jobs of High School

Its

Industries

with

Ann

Bartel

and Richard Murnane editors Low Wage

Shocks

Technology

New York

America

Problem solving Capacity

and

Look Deep

Appelbaum

Zavodny

and Madeline

Ginther

Three

Inside

Annette Bernhardt

2003 155194

Russell Sage Foundation

Donna

in

A

Workers

Educated

and Casey Ichniowski in Eileen

editors

Technology Growth and the Labor Market Boston Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003 235 258

By What

Means

LHorty

Yannick

The

Information Technology Affect

and Jacques

Incentives

of

Mairesse

Cambridge

Perspective

Transatlantic

Workers

Does

TQM

Practices

Ichniowski

in

Russell

HRM

and Innovative

and Research

Russell

and

Inequality

in Nathalie

the

Greenan

Economy A

Digital

Quality Improvement and Incentive

Robert Cole and Richard

eds The

Scott

Pay

for Frontline

Quality Movement

in

America

Sage 367386

New Evidence
eds The Quality

Practices

Robert Cole and Richard Scott

in

Productivity

Wages

and

2002

Press

Quality and the Quality of Incentives

with David Levine

from Theory and Research

Lessons

editors

MIT

Employment

on Adoption
Movement

and Effectiveness

in America

with Casey

from Theory

Lessons

Sage 2000 347366

BOOKS EDITED
The Analysis of Firms and Employees

Lane
of

Shaw

Kathryn

Quantitative and Qualitative

Fredrik Andersson and Till

Von Wachter

Approaches

Editors

Stefan Bender

Julia

Press National Bureau

University of Chicago

Economic Research 2008

The

of

Structure

University

Books

Wage

in Industrial

An

International

Press National

of Chicago

Comparison

Bureau

and Labor Economics

Relations

for

Edward

Editors

Economic

of

Research

2009 by

the

2009

Industrial

Lazear

Book

and
listed

Relations

Kathryn

Shaw

as Noteworthy

Section

Princeton

University

Differences

International

Kathryn

Shaw

Coeditor

in the

Business Practices

University of Chicago National

Journal

of

Labor Economics

and

Bureau

special

issue

Productivity

of Firms Editors

Richard

Freeman and

Economic Research 2009

of

on

Compensation Strategies

with George Baker and

Abbie Smith March 2002

Coeditor
Alice

DISCUSSION
Discussion
and

Journal

of

Nakamura 29

Dan

IN

Resources

special

issue

on

The

Economics

of

Women

and Children

with

1994

BOOKS

commentary

Sichel

Discussion

Human
Spring

National

commentary

Margaret Blair and

New Economy

Managing

Capital in the

Bureau

Economic Research forthcoming

The

of

New

Thomas Kochan

Relationship

Washington

Human

DC

8

edited

by Carol Corrado John Haltiwanger

2003

Capital in the

Brookings

American Corporation

Institution

1999

edited

by

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page41

of

106

BOOK REVIEWS
Review

PAPERS

C Katz

Harry

of

Shifting

Economic Journal

Southern

Gears

Changing

Labor Relations

in the

US

Automobile

Industry

in

1986 299300

53 October

AND PROCEEDINGS

Using

Econometrics

Insider

Womens

to

Study Productivity American Economic

Papers and

Association

May 2004 217 223

Proceedings 94

Contribution

to

Productivity Regional

Review

Federal

Bank

Reserve

of Boston

14

3

Q1

2005 4448
Technology Shocks and ProblemSolving

Capacity Economic Review

Bank

Federal Reserve

of Atlanta

2002
The

Search

Relentless

Academy

National

Getting

the

Lines
of

HRM

Proceedings

of

of

Workplace

D C Bureau

1999

of

of National

Function

with

Jon

the

Annual Meeting

53rd

of

the

Affairs forthcoming

Gant

Casey Ichniowski

Industrial

43 52

and Their

Practices

Proceedings

Effects

on Performance

1997 NSF Design and Manufacturing

the

Engineers

Grantees

US

in

and Japanese

Conference Seattle

WA

Steel

Society

1997 659670
Human

Firms Proceedings

MI Society

the

and the Production

TQM

and

of Participatory

Effects

Japanese

in

Association Proceedings

of

Manufacturing

The

HRM

Done

Job

Adoption

Efficiency

of Arbitrators Washington

Relations Research

The

for

of

Manufacturing

the

Resource

Management

1996 NSF Design

and Quality

on Productivity

Practices

and Manufacturing

in

U S and

Conference Dearborn

Grantees

1996 613614

Engineers

WORKING PAPERS
The

Spread

Retail

Implications

for

Wages

with

Brianna

Do

Making

with Less

January

Teachers

September

Teachers

Why

Productivity

is

Rising During Recessions

Connective

Who

Leave

Pulled

by Opportunity

December 2011

or Pushed by Accountability

Pay Compression Leaving

Capital

as

for

Opportunity

Social Capital The

NBER

working

Econometrics Empirical

Value

paper

Studies

of

with Anna

with

Sara

Champion

Management

Practices

Mastri and Sara

of Problem Solving

Networks

for

Champion
Team

Sept

2010

Players in

Firms

15619 December 2009

How

Management Matters

December 2009

People

with Edward Lazear and Christopher

2011

with Casey Ichniowski

Insider

Lafontaine

2012

The Value of Bosses with Edward Lazear and Christopher Stanton

The

and Francine

Cardiff

December 2012

available

Stanton

Modern

of

and Productivity

October

9

16 2009

NBER

Working

Paper

no 15618

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

What do

Bosses

Do

Working

Wage Compression and

Quality with Anna

Among

Talent Sorting and Skill Complementarity

Freedman John Haltiwanger

Insider

Paul

A

Econometrics

Page42

of

106

2009

Paper September

Teacher

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Champion

Mastri and Sara

Software

Engineers

January

2008

with Frederik Andersson Matthew

Oyer January 2007

Roadmap

Estimating Models

to

Organizational Performance

of

Casey

with

Ichniowski November 2006

Connective

Capital

Building Problem Solving

Networks

Firms with

Within

Casey Ichniowski

revised

April 2005

How

Does

IT

Really

Affect

Improvement and Worker
Working

Research

Paper

No 11773

Explorer Firms and Star Workers

Ann

with

Shocks

Productivity

in the

Innovative

Human

Investigating

HRM

Innovative

Workers

the

New Economy

and Workplace

Product

Innovation

Bureau

National

Process

Economic

of

conference

Between Product and Human Resource

Lane

Julia

Strategies

December 2004

2000

Efficiency speech July 2000

Shock

as a Technology
at

of

Capacity March 2002

speech September

Practices

Practices

for presentation

Link

John Haltiwanger

and Problem Solving

Resource

Comparisons

and Casey Ichniowski

Bartel

November 2005

with Fredrik Andersson Matthew Freedman

Technology

Plant Level

Productivity

Skills

Problem Solving

Building

on Technology Regulation

Capacity

in

and Employmentsponsored

Production

by

CEMFI

Madrid June 1999

Towards High Involvement

The Evolution

Networks

HRM

Organizations

with Jon Gant and Casey Ichniowski

Practices

Knowledge

Labor Supply Human

FirmSpecific

Distinguishing Differences

in

Accumulation and

the

Franchise Contracting

in Workers

1999

Capital and the Changing Access to

Capital

Fixed Effects

April

Changing

Sources

Good Jobs June 12

Distribution

of

Family

and Implications

1998

Income 1996

with Francine Lafontaine

December 1995

Investment

in Industry

Skills Implications

Labor Supply and Taxes
Possibilities December

Estimates

for

from

a

Wage Growth and Worker Displacement
Life Cycle Model

Produce

a Pessimistic

December 1993

View

of Estimation

1992

Labor Supply and Taxes 1967

1987

with Randall Mariger December

1991

REFEREE
American Economic Review Canadian Journal of Economics
Inquiry

Economic Journal

Economics

of

Education Review

10

Eastern Economic
Industrial

Relations

Journal

Economic

International

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Economic Review

Journal

International

Economics and Management Strategy
Journal

of

Money

Labor Economics

Credit and

Science

Social Science

of

Review

Journal
of

of

GSB Stanford

Regional

National

Science
of

Science

Committees

University

Human

University Committee on Faculty Staff

2011

Center Report

Resources

2013

present

12

Management X Committee 2011 12
Kenya

MBA

Study

2012

Trip

Academic Coordinating

GSB

Faculty Liaison

Committee

2010present

University Committee on Evaluation

Committee on Faculty

CoDirector

Human

Staff

Human

of

Resources

2006

Mellon University Committees

Carnegie

Committee 2002 2003

Budget and Finance

1999

Chairman Faculty Senate
Presidential

1996 1999

Faculty Affairs

1996 1998

Council

ViceChairman

Faculty Senate

Advising
Advisory

Committee

Advisory

Board

for the

Chair 1996 1997

1998 99
1994 1997

Co chair

Award Committee

of

1998 1999

Committee

Lecture Series

Presidents

1999

Review Committee the Social Sciences

University First Year Council

Undergraduate

Center of the Study

the

Teaching
of

Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate

Committee on

NonTenured

Senator for Faculty Senate

Appointments

Center

University Education Council

1994 1995
new structure

1993 1995

with

Student Luncheon Series

Committee on

Flexible

presentation

97 Network

Orientation

Relations

SS

Dean’s

Committee on
Ryan

for

Academic Advising

1993

Commission 1989 1992

Committee on Academic Support Services

H

1993 1994

1994

1994

Rates for Employees

Committee for University Award

Selection

Search

1991 1992

Committee 1991 1992

Nontenured

Appointments

1990 1992

Award Committee 1989 1990

1991 1992
presentations
1992

Teaching

Center Orientation

Advisory

Committee on Family and Work

Retention

Committee

Watson Fellowship
Flexible

1989 1991

19901991

Committee 1990 1991

Benefits Advisory

1994 1998

1996 1997
1995 1996

Committee on Faculty Promotion and Tenure Policy
Graduate

1992 1998

African Americans

1994 1995

University Parking Committee

Human

2009 2010

2007 2009
2004 present

Resource

GSB Summer Institute

Stanford

MBA Study Trip

Philippines

2010 2011

Student Newspaper

Group

1989 1990
11

106

1993 1994

of

Human Resources

Macroeconomics

Economic Studies Review

of

of

Applied Econometrics Journal

of

Financial Economics

Economic Journal

Quarterly Southern

Page43

ON COMMITTEES

SERVICE

Data

of

Journal

Law and Economics Journal
Political Economy Journal of

Economics

of

Manpower

of

Banking Journal

Quarterly Journal

Statistics

of

Journal

Journal

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Journal

of

Management

Economics and
Foundation

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Educational

Gender

Facilities

H

Graduate School

of Industrial AdministrationCommittees

Review Committee 2003

MBA Funding

Deans

Board 2003

MBA

BSBA

2003
2002

Committee

Committee

Advisory

Engineering

IM

1988 1989

Executive Education Faculty Advisory

Faculty

106

1987 1990

Associate Deans Council

GSIA

of

1987 1990

University Education Council

MBA Curriculum

Page44

SS 1988 1989

SS Subcommittee on Internships
Fulbright
Committee 1989 1990

CMU

Filed06 22 13

Committee 1989 1991

Committee

Studies

H

Document442

2002

Planning Committee chair

Academic Actions Committee 2001

Policy Committee

1987

Strategy Recruiting Committee

2001 2002

MBA Curriculum Committee 2001 2002
Coorganizer CMU University of Pittsburgh Applied

Micro Workshop

1995 1999

Economics Review Committee 1998
Management Game Board 1981 1998 most years
Dean’s

Advisory

Council

Subcommitteeon

1997

Sabbaticals

GSIA Committee on Women
SubcommitteeHead Tracks

IM

Curriculum

Organization

in IM

19941995

1992 1993

Review Committee 1991 1992

Economics Curriculum
Advisory

1996
Chair

Committee 1991 1992

Committee on Undergraduate

of

Conference
Conference

Organizer

Conference

Organizer

Conference

Organizer

Conference

CoOrganizer

Conference

1990 1992

Conferences or Sessions

CoOrganizer NBER Personnel
CoOrganizer NBER Personnel
CoOrganizer NBER Personnel

Conference

Economics

NBER
NBER
NBER

Personnel
Personnel
Personnel

26 27 2012
and Labor Studies Summer Institute July 28 30 2011
and Labor Studies Summer Institute July 27 30 2010
and Labor Studies Summer Institute July 26 30 2009
and Labor Studies Summer Institute July 30 31 2008
and Labor Studies Summer Institute July 29 30 2007
and Labor Studies Summer Institute

July

on Firms and Employers Ammersee Germany September

and Sponsor Conference

2006

NBER

Summer Institute

Conference

Organizer

Conference

CoOrganizer International

Stanford
Conference

University

Co Organizer

Workers

January
21st

Personnel Economics

Differences

in the

Cambridge July 28 2006

Business Practices

and Productivity of Firms

19 20 2005

Century

Human

Resource

University of Illinois November

Management

11 12 2005

12

Practices

and Their

Effects

on Firms and

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page45

of

106

B

Appendix

Court Documents
Declaration

of Steven

Burmeister

in

Support of Defendants

Opposition to

Plaintiffs

Motion for

Class Certification and Exhibits
Declaration

of Michelle

Maupin

in

Support of Defendants

Opposition to

Plaintiffs

Motion for

Class Certification and Exhibits
Declaration

of Lori

McAdams

in Support of Defendants

Opposition to

Motion

Plaintiffs

for

Class Certification and Exhibits
Declaration
Declaration
Plaintiffs

of

Danny McKell

of

Donna Morris

in Support of Opposition to Class Certification

Adobe Systems Inc

of

Motion for Class Certification and

Mason

Declaration

of

Declaration

of Frank

in Support of Defendants

Opposition to

Class Certification and Exhibits

March

Deposition of Alvaro Gonzalez Alvarez
Deposition of Rosemary ArriadaKeiper

Deposition of

Dan

Batali

Deposition of Lori Beck

Deposition of

28 2013

7 2013

March

8 2013

March

Deposition of Lazlo Bock

March

2013

19 2013

March

Deposition of Richard Bechtel

5

1 2013

March

Deposition of Darrin Baja

March

27 2013

Lynwen Brennan March 19 2013

Deposition of Shona Brown

January

15 2013

February

Deposition of Micheline Chau
Deposition of Sharon

20 2013

March

21 2013

Deposition of Steven Burmeister

November

Coker

1 2012
20 2013

March

Deposition of Steven Condiotti

21 2012

Deposition of Deborah Conrad November

Deposition of Brian Croll

March

21 2013
22 2013

Deposition of Chris Galy

March

20 2013

Deposition of

Tim Cook

March

7 2013
March 1 2013

Deposition of Kevin Hallock

June

Deposition of Digby Horner
Deposition of Renee James
Deposition of

Bob

March

Mansfield

Deposition of Michelle Maupin
Deposition of Lori

McAdams

Opposition to

Exhibits

Support of Defendants

in

Exhibits

and Exhibits

Stubblefield

Wagner

and

22 2013

April 11

2013

February

August

12 2013

2 2012

Appendix

B1

Plaintiffs

Motion for

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Deposition of Daniel McKell

January

Deposition of Stephanie Sheehy

Deposition of Jan

Van

Deposition of Frank Wagner

ADOBE

5 2013

216

Exhibit

398 76579DOC005956

Exhibit

1158

Exhibit

1159

14 2013

391 76583DOC003750

Exhibit

5 2013

7 2013

March

Exhibit

29 2013

February

March

Deposition of Sherry Whiteley

5 2013

March

der Voort

106

29 2013

April

Deposition of Mason Stubblefield

of

21 2012

March

Deposition of Deborah Streeter

Page46

20 2013

March

Deposition of Donna Morris August
Deposition of Paul Otellini

Filed06 22 13

Document442

050720

ADOBE

005661
019278

Exhibit

ADOBE
1160 ADOBE

Exhibit

1304 PIX00044225

Exhibit

1308

Exhibit

1309 PIX00049648

Exhibit

1855

Exhibit

1861 231APPLE105537

Exhibit

2501

Exhibit

2739 INTUIT 043560

Exhibit

2740 INTUIT 052841

ADOBE

009652

009425

Expert Witness Report of Kevin
Expert Report of Professor

F Hallock

Kevin

May 10 2013

and Citations

M Murphy

and Exhibits

12 2012

November

Order Granting in Part Denying in Part Motion for Class Certification

Employee Antitrust

Litigation

Plaintiffs Consolidated

Academic
Fredrik

Amended

No 11 CV 02509 LHK

Complaint

Andersson Matthew Freedman
for the Stars

2009
James

N Baron

Kevin

F Hallock

More 87

filed

In

Dkt 382

re High Tech

Filed

0405 2013

13 2011

September

Papers

Reaching

David

Who

Pay Why

John Haltiwanger Julia

Pays for Talent

M Kreps

Strategic

Human

Lane

and Kathryn

Shaw

Industries Economic Journal

in Innovative

Resources

People Earn What They Earn

1999

And What You Can Do Now To Make

Cambridge Univ Press 2012

Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn
of

Case

Shaw

Complementary Human Resource

Perspectives

155

Beyond

Incentive

Pay Insiders

Management Practices

of the Value

Estimates

17 Journal

of

Economic

163 168 2003

Casey Ichniowski and Kathryn

Shaw

Insider

Econometrics Empirical Studies

Appendix

B2

of

How

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Management Matters Handbook
Roberts

Princeton

Resources

Inequality
George

W

Milkovich

Bentley

Jerry

Economic

of

106

editors Robert Gibbons

Personnel Economics The Economists

Perspectives 21

MacLeod

The QuarterlyJournal

Paul Oyer and Kathryn
Spring

Shaw

Journal of Economic

Thomas Lemieux

of Organizational

Page47

of

Newman

Shaw

4

View

of

Human

Fall 2007

and Daniel Parent

Performance

Pay and Wage

Economics 2009

Barry Gerhard Compensation

Reward Systems Human Resource

87

McGraw

Class Notes Chapter 4

2012

Kathryn

Shaw

Insider

Econometrics

A Roadmap

with Stops Along the

Economics 2009

Bates Documents

76586DOC0001050

INTUIT

043603

INTUIT

AEO xls

018387

INTUIT

and John

Press 2013

University

Edward Lazear and Kathryn

Filed06 22 13

Document442

038812

LUCAS00062271
LUCAS00189964
LUCAS0062293
LUCAS189964

Appendix

B3

Way Labour

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page48

of

106

C

APPENDIX

payfor
The purpose

compensation

of this appendix

is

twofold

strategy of these Defendants

key human

highlight multiple

performance

a

is

It

is first

pay for performance philosophy

management

resource

to provide evidence that the

practices that contribute

to

second to

It is

making

it

a

environment

Adobe

1

Adobes compensation

performance

Morris

and expected future contribution

Decl

6

This

is

184 14 185 6

Dep

Morris Decl Exhibits

190 7 12

5

1

Dep 5611 14

ArriadaKeiper

2

evaluated

Managers were
performance

salary

and did

equity

grants

Donna Morris

HR

115 5 7
Morris

Deposition of Digby

Dep

117 20 118 1

employees were not determined on a

individual

who were

in the best position

to assess

7 9 ArriadaKeiper Dep 73 9 15 87 1888 1

Morris Decl

their

Dep

trained

and encouraged

assessments of individual

by his

trained to

evaluations

each year Adobe conducted

to differentiate compensation

Morris Decl

performance

7 18

her

manager

make salary

an annual review during which every

Morris Decl

adjustments for

their

range Morris Decl

above

were

10

7 18 The salary

and below the salary ranges

also based

on

individual

Appendix

restrict

Dep 69 2 24

each job

a managers
Managers could pay

Dep 69 1224

performance

C1

Dep 53 15 54 5

into consideration

ranges did not

Arriada
Keiper

employee

Streeter

employees based on these

within budgetary confines while taking

but rather served as guide posts ArriadaKeiper

pay

of

Dep 88 13 25 89 11 90 4 105 4 13 175 24 177 2

Specifically

employee was

discretion

Streeter

Deposition of Donna Morris

Managers were

based on

Declaration

testimony as well as internal

wide basis but were determined by managers

among employees

codes

company

the

deposition

Compensation for

each employees performance

Streeter

by

Deposition of Deborah Streeter

Horner

company

confirmed

to

their

Dep 68 18 21 8815 25 105 10 13 105 1822 176 22 177 2

documents ArriadaKeiper

Horner

has always been to pay employees based on

policy

Morris Decl

Bonuses and

2325

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

ArriadaKeiper

Dep 208 23 209 16

performance

the hiring stage

hiring

at

manager

Moreover Adobe

A new

hires

Adobe

and differentiate an individuals

Page49

trained its managers

compensation

Dep 212 23 213 1

ArriadaKeiper

salaries should reflect

within

lies

to

106

pay for

the discretion

trained its managers

education and

of

that

of the

starting

in comparison

skills

to

32

employees Morris Decl

existing

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Apple

3

Apples philosophy

performance

and individual

compensate

to

its

Burmeister

Apples

by

a long

managers

shot

were responsible

compensation

at

Bob

variety

to the

4

must be

Mansfield

company and

to the

of Steven

Cook

Dep

so thats

Dep

31 1 12

for each employee

know

Individual

in their groups

including

as well as his or her education

96 10 11

number one you

47 13 19 5323 54 1 165 25 166 5

Managers were
each employees

professional

experience

Dep 46 8 14 4819 23 137 23 138 12
in

2006 and

September

July

2007 confirm

and based on employee performance

individualized

training managers

to

differentiate

c hanges

compensation

at Apple

employees in his or her group

employees in

Mansfield

and

philosophy has been

Declaration

Tim Cook

job

that

Ex

by performance level

must be commensurate

Ex

with

performance

Each manager

salary increases

and experience

personal

their

general

contributions

for performance

Burmeister

231APPLE095048

and

Apples

of factors in setting compensation

team

and job scope

decisions

individual

for setting compensation

231APPLE105542

contribution

pay

prepared for Apple managers

Presentations

1861.6

a

contribution

at

We

7 Burmeister Dep

to consider

responsibilities

their

3 Deposition of

Decl

Deposition of

company

to the

responsibilities

on a meritocracy

built

individual

1855.103

scope

Burmeister

Burmeister Decl

instructed

contributions

employees based on

in their job

differences

employees based on

to compensate

is

conducted

Burmeister

Decl

annual or

7

Managers

performance reviews

received

stock grants and bonuses which they had discretion

their

group

Burmeister Decl

67 Burmeister Dep

Appendix

C2

to

budgets for merit

allocate

58 8 11

among

of

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

at

231APPLE105542

Bonus

106

elements help motivate employees

Three core compensation

Base salary to stay competitive

of

Dep 3011 19 35 1936 23 Ex

Mansfield

1861.6

Page50

to reward outstanding

Stock

achievement

to

invest in

long term motivation and retention

5

Managers were

but these guidelines

managers

with recommended

also provided

point and were one of

served only as a reference

were expected

many

factors that

compensation Burmeister

use to determine individual

to

salary ranges for each job level

Dep 46 3

oneby
47 7 5513 19 57 11 20

Salaries are awarded

salary ranges are reference

points Theyre

Those are purely a reference

point

on

or below the

that employees

Managers could and

maximum and minimum salary

yearly

not hard minimums or hard

theyre

Our

performance

maximums

But salaries are truly determined based on an individual

one assessment of the individual

above

based on the individuals

performance

did set individual

guidelines

and contributions

to

an employees

for

group

the

base salaries

job level based

Burmeister

Dep 57 11

20 69 1 13 136 20 138 11

6

As a

result total

compensation varied

employees within the same job level
paid well and youll be compensated

you wont
you

get paid as

much

are a major contributor

Croll

Dep

as

As a manager

states

do very very

well at

If

a lot

contributes

at

you

if

for your contributions

someone who

youll

significantly

Apple even among

contribute

you dont

So

Apple

its

a lot youll

contribute

as

get

much

really about merit and if

Deposition of Brian Croll

190 20 191 2
Google

7

Google

pays

Declaration

B

Dep

Shona Brown

28 7 16

employees

of Frank

Google compensation

Wagner

its

Wagner

presentations

Wagner

dated 2007 and

Deposition of Laszlo Bock

Brown Dep 67 24 68 4
Appendix

4 5 Wagner

Decl

C3

2009

Bock

Decl

Exhibits

A

Deposition of Frank Wagner

Dep

4825 49 4 Deposition

of

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Wagner Decl

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page51

106

of

5

Bock Dep

4825 49 4

Brown Dep 68 5 24

8
annually

Decl

and

Merit based
are based

salary adjustmentsand promotion

on an employees performance

salary adjustments are completed

during the previous

four quarters

Wagner

15

Wagner Decl

10 13

Wagner Decl

13

Wagner

Brown Dep 76 5 14 Wagner

Decl

Dep 26 2225 27 1 6 29 1521

16

9
10

Wagner

When

Dep 29 79

bonus and equity are considered
See Wagner

11

Compensation

at

Google

Decl

has always included equity and bonuses

30

in

addition

salary

26 27

Wagner Decl
Appendix

C4

Wagner

Dep 131 9 11

to

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page52

of

106

Wagner Decl

27

Wagner Decl

17 23

21

Wagner Decl

Intel

12

Compensation

at

Intel

Deposition of Deborah Conrad
compensation

is

therefore

is

based on the individual

Conrad

Dep

performance and performance

performance versus the

Meritocracy

is

market

priority for Intel

to

The number one

grade performance

Deposition of Renee James

one of the five key tenets of

a high

203 7 8

Intels

performance of each employee

total

14

Appendix

C5

for setting

versus peers and

Dep 244 21245 7

compensation philosophy and

Deposition of Daniel McKell

13

James

criterion

McKell

Dep

is

190 1 3

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page53

of

106

15

16

Intuit

17

Deposition testimony from

As explained by

performance philosophy

managers

of

Mason

to

focus on performance

Stubblefield

training that focuses

is

Stubblefield

Whiteley

are taught

that they

explained that

that

Intuits

Dep

Intuit

Stubblefield

is

a

at

109 20 22

pay for

pay for

w

the

Further

person the

Appendix

w
on

skills

Moreover

payforperformance company
retention

training

Deposition

have any

e dont

on compensation

they bring and the

Intuit

employee Sherry

which means

people when you look

C6

e train

based on performance

All of our focus

Dep 111 1 6

highest rated highest

Intuits

employee Mason Stubblefield

same

the

and appropriate

bring

Intuit

mak e pay decisions

on paying anybody

paying for performance

contribution

and

demonstrate

witnesses

Intuit

at

that

their

managers

total

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

we

compensation

Whiteley

differentiate

Intuit

Plaintiffs

Exhibit

36 14 19

at

does not

are instructed

circumstances
to

Dep

seek

for Class Cert Dkt

Understanding

Deposition of Sherry

are specifically trained

to

among employees

No

215

Intuit

the fundamentals

own

on each employees

Brown Decl

to

trains

Defendants

in Support of

managers

its

to

Opp

differentiate

you

of total rewards will help

linking pay decisions

but rather

to performance

as

a leader

outcomes

and

strategy

19

Employees pay

based on performance

Id

at

Performance for Results

Differentiate

20

AND

is

Meet

the

about performance

Pay Decisions

persons

role at the

Because

facing

because

for

Exhibit

may

2740.2

be awarded

Differentiating

Performance 2740.23

Budget

important skills for one business

unit that’s

164

See also Hallock

Differentiating

Moreover a

business

reviewed on an annual basis and increases

2739.9

Dep 38 2439 11

Whiteley

Intuit

salaries based

10 Ex 19

Decl

vein managers

106

of

Dep 111 8 12

to set individual

Stubblefield

Mtn

2739.5

business

is

In this

Page54

people

the right

achieve pay equity or parity

to

differentiate rewards and recognition

another

are rewarding

among employees Whiteley

18
managers

we

need to make sure

Whiteley

Filed06 22 13

Document442

we

we’re

company

in so

unit in a point

big marketing

many

have so

does not have salary ranges Stubblefield

many

in time

is

not determinative

different business

it

of their salary

units

key or

might be strategy leaders

challenges

it

could be marketing

different jobs and roles inside the

and

But

in

it

really

company

131 21

Lucasfilm

21
practice

level

Lucasfilms

whereby pay

is

22
compensation

Condiotti

Performance

at

is to

pay for performance

based on differentiated performance at the individual

LUCAS00062271 Pay

Steve Condiotti

compensation philosophy

overall

Lucasfilm

for Performance

Dep
is

an

Toolkit

for

Managers

and

a

business

unit

see also Deposition of

163 25 164 4

important

factor that determines

Deposition of Micheline Chau

Appendix

C7

an individual

Chau

Dep

employees

119 6 15

Deposition

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

of Sharon

Maupin

Coker

Dep

Dep

19 1718

market

data

were attributed

Coker

Dep

two components

to good performance

budgets as well as general

on performance

rating

although managers

stay within their overall

compensation

records

160 and 145

showing

of targets

Dep

for any

31 1 32 8

that

rating

provides managers

for merit increases

from the Boards

see also

It

means

was

a

guidelines

how

69

at

140 175
a merit increase

performing employees

Each

individual

perform

they

as long as they

LUCAS189964

h igher

employees

depending on

distinguished

not eligible for

that

with overall

and bonuses which

for employees with

one employee

An

performance based and determined

for certain employees were

than lower performing

Brennan

is

of Directors

to deviate

the bonuses

that

in terms of compensation

Lynwen Brennan

competitive

that all of her salary increases

Dep

Beck

Dep 138 7 140 20

Chau

also noting

larger pay increases

differently

and bonus

merit increase

have discretion

budget

and

der Voort

compensation annually based on performance

guidelines

6

eg

due to Needs Improvement

or bonus

receive

ratings

Van

der Voort

testified

Deposition of Lori Beck

manager The Lucasfilm Board

depend

106

of

and she has never been told that her salary increased

merit ie annual salary increase

compensation

Van

of salary determination are performance

For example Lucasfilm recruiter Lori Beck

the employees

Page55

Deposition of Michelle Maupin

see also Deposition of Jan

Lucasfilm adjusts employee

individuals

by

253 23 254 1 261 1620

39 5 11 95 6 7

reason other than performance

23

Filed06 22 13

Document442

is treated

Deposition of

166 20 21
Pixar

24

Pixar believes

from employees department

25

total

pay

for performance

Pixar determines base salary raises based on specific

practices

generally

in a philosophy of

managers

Salary increases

McAdams

in particular reflect

sets the pool for base salary raises at

salary but individual

managers

among the employees The

are given

Decl

individual

an amount equal
discretion

determination of each employees

Appendix

C8

recommendations

21

the contribution

wide

in its compensation

to

to

of the

employee

Pixar

approximately

percent

distribute their salary pool

salary increase

generally

reflects

of

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

the employees

performance

skill

and

contributions

Dep 31 2 17 Deposition

McAdams

noting that the

people

who were

Filed06 22 13

Document442

to

of Stephanie

struggling

Pixar

Page56

Deposition of Lori

Sheehy

Sheehy

would probably

Dep

not receive

a

of

106

McAdams

169 22 170 3

percent

increase

26
percentage

year

For example Dana

to

each of the members of

Deposition of Dana Batali

discretion

Batali Manager of Pixars

to award

more

than

his team according

Batali

RenderMan

to their performance

Dep 43 1217

Mr Batali

raises and practiced

46 9 47 11

Appendix

C9

Team

felt

that discretion

ascribe

sa

of the previous

he

had

the

regularly

Id

at

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

of this appendix

Defendant and to provide

examples of

106

by each

as used

to clarify the definition of internal equity

is

of

D

APPENDIX

The purpose

Page57

application

its

Adobe

1

At Adobe
employees

individual

Keiper

the concept of internal equity

and performance with

skills

Dep 122 9 15

and employees

candidates

among other

factors

it

decisions

differentiate

not at a

2

firm
wide

The evidence

Dr

Hallock

Digby Horner

to

cites

support

we

equity

was
I

which

Dr Hallock

job

code

was
in

on

Streeter

on

the list here

manager

employees For
of Engineering

level

the compensation

Appendix

D1

113

of

is

this

is

guy

is

a

high

But

by comparing 10
a

specific

the pay of a group of

an infrequent

who

Dep

basis to

star

employees

relative to that

peer

really a rock star and

occurrence

about his performance and being able to say well what has he done in comparison
these other folks particularly the one

in

34

for individual

at the

data driven fashion decide
this is

differences

internal equity Hallock

of adjusting

similar

demonstrates the ways managers

want to understand what his performance

make an exception here because

are

individual

Senior Vice President

deciding

means

on an

Morris Decl

decisions

applied

eg Arriada

as one factor

internal equity

applied

Adobe cared about

not used as a

so that I can really in a

willing to

is

compensation

Plaintiffs and

the concept

same

capabilities

consider

to

an

just parity between

Dep 123 1925 250 25 251 11

making compensation

shows

Dep 190 15 201 17

community
are

Internal

by

and

is

to ensure that pay is differentiated based

his claim that

employees doing similar work

Horner

managers

level to equalize

cited

equity

skills

to the testimony of Adobes

the testimony and evidence

employee

at

the concept of internal equity

considered internal equity when

example

its

and contribution Arriada Keiper

90 1 15 175 8 13 Thus

Internal

about looking

Adobe encourages

when making compensation
performance

is

employees See

those of other

Dep 148 13 149 8

Morris

refers to the act of comparing

its

to

more

some

of

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

3

Dr Hallock

on

also relies

phrase internal equity Similar to

Mr

ADOBE

adjusting

009425

and reduction

ADOBE005661

019278

009652

the compensation

considering

122 14 123 2

at

considering

ADOBE

making

a counter

9 7
to

packages

HR

050724

offer which

document
is

new

the

to be handled

equity

Exhibit

among

other things

offer for a

employees

Dep

new

hire

Exhibit

should always be considered when

by case

a case

1160

See also ArriadaKeiper

hire with those of existing

on

hire

and

the compensation

stating internal equity

new

equity

for

by

when deciding

internal equity

to

1159

Exhibit

employees

9 5

to align with internal

offer for

of existing

when

from

offer for a potential

of the market and internal

by comparing expected performance of
216

from

the

2501

base salary increase

employee

recommending compensation

106

not as a basis of

Exhibit

recommending promotional compensation packages

based on considerations

ADOBE

employees

recommending compensation
existing

of

internal equity

employees

individual

to

base salary increase

by comparing him with an

ADOBE

Ms Morris considered

of a group of

recommending reduction

Page58

emails from Donna Morris that contain

specific

for

the compensation

to

1158

Exhibit

several

Horner

recommending compensation packages
automatically

Filed06 22 13

Document442

basis

Apple

4

At Apple

internal equity

particular group are compensated

contribution Baja

what youre looking

contribution

Dep 44 2 16
at

if

managers

in

manager has

individual

in your

employees within a

share their performance

compensation

relative to the other employees

Internal

how

Dep 63 17 21

Burmeister

at

of

who

relative to others

youre looking

your scope of management

5

a measure

is

Internal

that its

group

fair

or across

equity

levels

means

and

to

me

that

based on the individuals

your organization whatever

is

equity

is

but one of multiple

determining the pay of

their

the latitude to determine

promotional increase Internal equity

reports

what

may

is

or

factors that

Burmeister

appropriate

may

may figure

into the decisions

Dep 64 13 17

to pay an individual

not factor into their ultimate

Appendix

D2

of

At Apple each
for

decision

Apple

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

was more concerned

with rewarding

employees Burmeister

Dep 165 25 166 5

we

background and

they’re always individual

The evidence
as

Dr Hallock
one

when making an

compensation

Alvarez

Dep 30

Apple would

equity

122

Dep 44

factors

employees

at

the

the relative

making compensation

offer to a

new

asked

if

at

same level

Mr

for

aware of and

And

it

pay

of employees with similar

for

new

recruits

David Gonzalo

citing Baja

in

there have

Dep 43 44

than somebody

Alvarez

one

is

124

who

been circumstances

is you

that

new

hires might create

No No

Bechtel responded

I

wouldnt

pressure

say

thing

wed

know

weve done

quoting Deposition of Richard Bechtel

higher pay to

See

in

what other people were making

someone onto a team

offering

achievements

hire one of the factors to consider

citing Deposition of Alvaro

reasons

across

don’t try to control

determinations

were paying somebody more coming

been business

When

Apple we

confirms Apple recruiters were

cites

peer thats performing at a good level

that but theres

106

making comparisons

than

that

of

decisions

noting that looking

do when hiring

why we

want to know

their

internal

is

many

of

experience and job functions when

120

would say

I

Page59

look at the individual’s merit scope of responsibility

sometimes considered

Hallock

performance

individual

consistency that

6

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Bechtel

to pay current

that

Bechtel

Dep 45 3 15

7
decisions

Many
As Apple

factors other than internal equity

recruiting

are considered

manager David Alvarez noted

groups

Alvarez

8

consider

when making an

compensation

contributor

technical

however
as well as

Baja

pay

they bring on people to

recruiter Darrin Baja testified

of employees in the group for which

Baja continued

individual

Dep 208 21 21025

Likewise former Apple

compensation

making

Every situations very different

Every manager has different methods that they apply in terms of when

their

in

offer to a candidate

that a candidates

what

this

Hallock

offer

individual

he was

would

hiring

122
also

was

that the

one thing he would

citing Baja

Dep 44 17 24

be determined based on

her existing

could bring to the company as a technical

Dep 44 25 45 4
Appendix

D3

Mr

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page60

of

106

Google

9
should be paid

at

Compensation
compensation

in

10

to

similar compensation

states

for each

the

However

know

their

internal equity

is

Googles

fair

across

of

receive

to each employee’s performance

equitable

a little used term at

Google

and

12

employees Wagner Decl

field people talk about internal equity which

pay should be

Director

and that therefore there should be variation

performance

relative to other

people of like contributions

Google employees should

employee that corresponds

company

In the compensation

you

based on

means

that

Wagner

levels Frank

that internal equity

treatment

compensation

contribution

uses the term internal equity to mean

Google

Bock

generally

Dep 47 2548 1
means people

people

Bock

Dep 48 2 9

Bock

48 2549 4 He
well

goes on to say

everything’s

equally

You know

distributed

fairness is

commonly

taken to

mean you know

Within Google

Bock

11

Consistent

See

with Googles

eg

Wagner

Dep

definition of

internal

Dep 184 19 185 21

2910 21
Appendix

D4

equity

Dep 49 6 19

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Ex A

Wagner Decl

Managers

Engineering

at

Filed06 22 13

Document442

2007

Salary Planning

Page61

of

Presentation

106

to

p6

and

p13

Intel

12
check

At

on pay

Intel internal equity

for those individuals

of pay for performance

different people in the

equity

Id

When

across

equity

is

compare people

to

Dep 242 20 243 14

of criteria

same grade band

Internal

equity

James

a set

is

used

across

a variety

equity

asked

I

but one of

Did you

the workforce

aspirational

is

at

think

think

Intel

it

is

a

many

Dep 244 21 245 3

compensation

14

to

guideline

Managers

based on

Conrad

their

an

extension

check

and

as a

of the concept

between

of different metrics performance

first

goal the

that helps

pay

on

but

we

McKell

a Vice

response was

I

know

of internal

think

internal

apples and

focus on pay for performance

and foremost look individually

and take into account

when making pay

level principles

you look at you

grade level performance

Dep 203 8 10

Deborah Conrad

that she has given

how
in

at

each employees

similarly situated employees

are

that grade level their skill set and

Dep 123 2 124 1 188 1 4

President

and

Intels

Chief Marketing

Officer

testified

hundreds of employees raises over time but that giving one person in her

group a raise has not resulted in her raising the compensation

group

is

in aggregate

some general

at

was an important

based on performance

being compensated

other factors

use

It

factors that are evaluated

maintaining

oranges data and give you a sense of whats going
James

we

that

of similar skill levels

242 20 243 2

13
decisions

and

is

Conrad Dep 249 19 250 22

15

Appendix

D5

for all the other employees in that

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page62

of

106

16

Intuit

17

Whiteley
pay equity he stated
between

its

looking for that

pay and performance in that your highest

your highest

Galy

that

Dep 103 22 104 3 When

paid

Dep

employees

202 17 19

Stubblefield

Stubblefield

I

think

its

Stubblefield

was asked

to

define

looking for that relationship

performing employee should likely be one of

Dep 117 3 9 see

further testified

Appendix

D6

also Deposition of Chris Galy

All our focus in training

on

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

compensation

is

Document442

We

paying for performance

paying people the

same

Stubblefield

18

in other

companies

As

When

Page63

on

specifically train not to focus

Dep 111
Intuit

Filed06 22 13

of

106

internal equity

in

27

is

Galy was asked

he responded

Galy Dep 202 20 203 1

Dep 209 18 24

Galy

19

The overwhelming
away from

transitioned

high performance

workplace

employees commensurate

meaning of pay equity
an objective

INTUIT
focusing

since

038812
on

should be

that characterizes

Intuit

their

Performance

INTUIT

on

equal See

at

equity

phrase

eg INTUIT

a pay for performance

employees

reflect

These documents

Performance for Results

038812

documents

the oft repeated

2009

018387

internal equity the focus is

Intuit

contain

talent and markets are not

Differentiating

had

clear that Intuit

it

for all

high tech world pay

the

contributions

documents

2007 INTUIT

2005 make

would mean equal pay

internal equity

with

after

concept of internal equity In a traditional workplace

the traditional

such as a union environment

of documents

majority

a

means paying

this

transition in the

Internal

043603

explain

In

Equity

is

not

2006

that instead

of

philosophy and that there

Differentiating

Pay Decisions

for

14
Lucasfilm

20
peers

At Lucasfilm

internal equity

This definition of equity

equity

He

explain

the significance

states that Senior

is

evident

Manager

of

in

is

an

the

issue in evaluating

many quotes

the

employees relative to

Dr Hallock

uses in defining

Compensation Michelle Maupin was asked

of peer relationships

in

setting compensation

Appendix

D7

at

their

Lucasfilm

Can you
she

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

The

answered

significance

is

range using the same type of
peers and to

market

21

As

evident

employees are making

The

from

These policies

reflect

employee would
employee is

23
heavily

put

contrary

to

this

Dep 246 6 14

or even

the

on

be

the facts

regarding

pay range

to which

Michelle

testified

job Van

Maupin

because

Van

in

a

job family

three to four levels

at

a compensation
and

The salary range
der

Voort

require

is

not affect

was assigned

Jan

basis and

pay

the overall

Van

was

der Voort

salary structure provides a

does not have any

individual

60 and

compensation

reasons

byindividual

Dep 204 22 24

generally

for one

salaries for every

raise

would

that Lucasfilms

der Voort

Lucasfilms

then multiple

manager

adjusting the

pay

levels of grade

testified

pay for

the pay of the lowest employee

higher

that

it

would

level

in the job family

typically three to four levels and the lowest level

below obviously

for a job level

job

increase

Lucasfilm for several

what you pay an

Lucasfilms

you have

adjustments to Lucasfilms

what other

Dep 166 24 167 6

the individuals

officer

the salary range for that

conversely

data

Maupin

performancenot on

set and

giving a raise to one individual

employees in the same job family where

41

skill

compensation

extremely rare that internal equity would

would be

41

the entire pay structure

had wide ranges within salary grades

increased

pay

pay

one factor relevant in setting

on

pressure

Administrative

within a job family

similar job and

does not affect pay policies instituted by Lucasfilm

range of salary for a particular pay grade and

structure

but

is

Since compensation was determined on an individual

Lucasfilms Chief

impact

equity

Plaintiffs theory that

related to performance

structure

past quote

other factors

upward

106

of

align those employees relative to their

sets to appropriately

of internal equity

many

employees pay within a

individual

based on job level

Coker

notion

Page64

167

Hallock

Employees are compensated

22

to consider

skill

Filed06 22 13

Document442

overall

the senior

level

salary structure

determined by benchmarking

Maupin

Dep 186 13 21 And

did not have

against

relevant

a

direct effect

external

on

market survey

Dep 195 25 196 6 Chau Dep 32 933 15 124 11 125 23 Maupin Dep 148 25 149 12

Appendix

D8

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

compensation because the pay structure and individual

individual

Page65

compensation

106

of

moved

Id 9424 95 8

independently of one another

Pixar

Dr Hallock

24
is

used

Resources

Dr

of this fact

in light

Dr

comparisons

does not

Lori

Hallock

Hallock

them

evaluate

experience

against

and and

Pixar documents

points

We

existing

look

employees

at

specific

employee we

evaluate

worked

theyve

experience

their

And

and determine whether theyre

Sheehy

Dep 143 20 24

spectrum from rock

receive

increase

to

the standard

percent

star

noting

my team

according to

PIX00044225

2006

make them an

44229 a

25

to as

25
Howard Look

low

Second

as

then

in

we

and

level

skill

look at where

Human
new

how we

While

McAdams

and performance

into

raise

people

performance

how

Look

and

number

the

existing

of projects

noting

are performing all along the

that while most employees

would

year

See also

spreadsheet

of one Pixar group varied

a proposed

D9

not receive

a percentage to each of the

ascribe

Appendix

With an

performance id 40 2541 7

were struggling

an email written

describes

their

employees

salary increase

0

cites

who

of the previous

among employees

Dr Hallock

I

31 10 17

to the studio

given

that Pixar analyzes

Id

assessment of a particular

they are in the range relative to those things

the right place

contemporaneous

In the email

skills

an individualized

contributions

Dep Tr 4312 17

their

of

offer relative to their

Dep 32 12 15

struggling id 169 22 170 3

base salary increases

high as

performance

percent

Batali

Vice President

experience and education and

and and

much more by

performance

on

makes peerto peer

the cited testimony as well as other Pixar evidence

demonstrates that Pixar is guided

employees

the phrase internal equity

Pixar determines the base salary of a

testimony indicates that Pixar takes other employees salaries
account in setting compensation

which

testimony of Pixars

talent McAdams

our existing

in

to evidence that Pixar

She was asked how

employee and answered

salaried

any

the deposition

cites

McAdams

cite

by

Pixars

leveling

Ex

a

members

of

1304

demonstrating that in

significantly

Vice President

matrix he

from

as

of Software

has developed

to

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Pixar a consistent framework for evaluating

give

engineers

1309
that

Document442

It

also

makes

it

much

PIX00049648 Look

we

value them at

offers from other

least

as

easier to

continues

much

companies Id

as

e want

some new

ourselves

against

to send a clear

hires

who

Contrary to Hallocks

D10

the Radford

message

are seeing

106

its software

survey

Ex

to these engineers

much more competitive

compensation

survey comparisons and based on individual

Appendix

of

of

claim that the email describes

related to internal equity the email underscores that Pixars

by benchmarking

Page66

the expected contribution

compare

w

Filed06 22 13

employee

decisions

issues

are guided

contributions

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Appendix

Page67

Employer

Title

Class

106

E1

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical

of

2005
Managers

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

ADOBE

4

4

5

6

ADOBE

15

31

23

49

ADOBE

1

7

1

7

ADOBE
ADOBE

16

28

30

69

14

20

25

37

ADOBE

12

16

16

23

ADOBE
ADOBE

1

1

3

3

3
2

ADOBE

258

477

546

1,035

ADOBE
ADOBE

238

451

534

1,036

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

2

2

2

2

ADOBE

3

3

3

4

ADOBE

1

1

2

2

ADOBE

4

17

8

27

ADOBE

3

10

4

15

ADOBE

9

11

12

14

ADOBE

17

22

27

34

ADOBE

13

14

17

20

ADOBE

3

2

3

3

ADOBE

6

5

10

15

ADOBE

10

19

20

43

ADOBE

10

9

19

21

ADOBE

33

61

94

159

ADOBE

3

3

5

ADOBE

3

1

3

5
2

ADOBE

3

5

4

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

4

3

12

12

6

ADOBE

2

1

2

2

ADOBE
ADOBE

22

32

44

70

12

12

14

17

ADOBE

2

1

2

2

ADOBE
ADOBE

1

1

1

2

1
3

3

5

ADOBE

1

4

2

5

ADOBE

1

3

ADOBE

28

48

40

81

ADOBE

58

106

100

204

ADOBE

65

138

106

288

ADOBE

40

46

60

84

ADOBE

3

2

4

4

ADOBE

13

18

20

40

ADOBE

4

18

8

39

ADOBE

18

18

28

34

ADOBE

10

13

13

19

ADOBE

8

10

13

18

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

2

3

2

ADOBE

75

79

143

185

ADOBE

48

44

81

101

ADOBE

1

1

2

3

ADOBE

11

19

13

22

ADOBE
ADOBE

4

6
3

5

7

3

ADOBE

37

55

77

115

ADOBE
ADOBE

34

42

59

84

26

38

47

75

ADOBE

20

24

32

44

ADOBE

59

74

94

130

ADOBE

93

121

196

292

ADOBE

88

109

189

312

ADOBE

25

29

43

50

ADOBE

53

56

97

119

ADOBE

43

53

98

139

ADOBE

27

20

55

59

ADOBE

1

3

1

3

ADOBE

3

7

6

12

ADOBE

4

5

5

9

ADOBE

6

14

8

18

ADOBE

5

5

5

5

ADOBE

7

11

7

11

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

7

9

8

16

4

3

4

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page68

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

ADOBE

Title

Class

2005
Managers
4

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

3

Manager
4

Years

Employee
6

ADOBE

21

21

24

29

ADOBE

178

274

308

483

ADOBE
ADOBE

2

2
4

2

4

7

7

ADOBE

3

7

5

10

ADOBE
ADOBE

2

2
2

2

2

2

2

4

ADOBE

2

2

5

ADOBE
ADOBE

57

57

133

1

1

1

ADOBE

62

86

114

ADOBE

3

4

3

ADOBE

1

1

1

ADOBE

44

49

97

109

2

5

179
1

178
5
1

ADOBE

89

96

145

174

ADOBE

107

110

209

251

ADOBE

63

50

125

151

ADOBE

1

2

1

2

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

5

9

8

15

ADOBE

12

30

18

45

ADOBE

3

6

4

ADOBE

86

78

189

246

ADOBE

205

366

485

1,044

ADOBE

4

5

4

7

ADOBE

2

1

3

3

ADOBE

2

4

4

6

ADOBE
ADOBE

4

5

1

4
1

1

1

ADOBE

21

24

40

52

ADOBE
ADOBE

1

1
1

1

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

5

8

10

14

8

5

ADOBE

5

9

7

14

ADOBE

13

14

22

26

ADOBE

1

1

3

3

ADOBE

2

2

2

2

ADOBE

4

3

5

5

ADOBE

1

1

2

2

ADOBE

6

7

12

18

ADOBE

7

12

10

18

ADOBE

89

122

159

265

ADOBE

31

37

70

91

ADOBE

8

6

13

19

ADOBE

12

19

16

32

ADOBE

10

12

14

20

ADOBE

21

47

64

150

ADOBE

13

8

24

24

ADOBE

4

10

ADOBE

3

5

4

ADOBE
ADOBE

2

2

2

3

3

11

4

19

ADOBE
ADOBE
ADOBE

1
5
2

ADOBE

6
2

12

1

6

8

2

2

1

5

ADOBE

9

12

10

13

ADOBE

112

215

231

483

ADOBE

133

314

334

849

ADOBE

76

97

156

240

ADOBE

12

30

18

47

ADOBE

2

4

3

5

ADOBE

4

2

6

ADOBE

22

72

42

7

179

ADOBE

2

2

2

2

ADOBE

12

21

16

29

ADOBE

17

26

24

40

ADOBE

1

1

2

2

ADOBE

2

10

4

16

ADOBE

8

9

9

14

ADOBE

2

4

6

13

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page69

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

ADOBE

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

1

Years

Employee
2

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

1

3

1

3

ADOBE
ADOBE

1

1

1

1

1
5

3

11

ADOBE

6

25

8

33

ADOBE
ADOBE

14

28

21

45

11

28

15

41

ADOBE

8

7

13

14

ADOBE

16

19

25

37

ADOBE

1

2

2

4

ADOBE

1

3

2

5

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

10

10

12

18

ADOBE

25

46

32

73

ADOBE

21

45

29

68

ADOBE

4

7

6

9

ADOBE

3

6

6

11

ADOBE

17

18

30

48

ADOBE

4

1

5

5

ADOBE

2

4

3

6

ADOBE

3

4

3

7

ADOBE

4

7

6

9

ADOBE

8

12

13

19

ADOBE

1

1

1

1

ADOBE

1

2

1

2

ADOBE

6

7

7

9

ADOBE

10

12

11

16

ADOBE

4

3

5

5

ADOBE

5

8

5

9

ADOBE

4

4

APPLE

3

3
3

3

3

APPLE

2

3

6

10

APPLE

2

15

2

5
2

8

APPLE

3

3

APPLE

4

2

4

4

APPLE

2

1

3

3

APPLE

11

17

15

27

APPLE

27

55

41

75

APPLE

41

103

63

168

APPLE

31

62

52

92

APPLE

4

4

4

5

APPLE

3

1

5

5

APPLE

6

7

11

12

APPLE

10

14

16

25

APPLE

7

14

14

24

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

4

2

4

4

APPLE

11

10

20

31

APPLE

8

13

16

35

APPLE

7

8

15

30

APPLE

3

4

6

14

APPLE

2

2

5

9

APPLE

1

2

2

APPLE

3

1
2

6

6

APPLE

1

1

5

5

APPLE

2

9

14

APPLE

2

5
6

6

18

APPLE

4

5

8

10

APPLE

3

3

6

8

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

5

3

8

9

APPLE

10

15

19

28

APPLE

6

9

11

15

APPLE

3

2

7

7

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

1

2

1

2

APPLE

1

7

5

12

APPLE

5

15

12

44

APPLE

2

4

5

9

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

3

5

7

8

APPLE

2

1

5

5

5

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page70

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

APPLE

2

3

4

6

APPLE

2

1

4

4

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

7

10

11

16

APPLE

6

10

12

24

APPLE

7

7

14

21

APPLE

2

2

4

4

APPLE

13

17

15

19

APPLE

20

43

29

51

APPLE

22

54

37

76

APPLE

18

31

29

40

APPLE

3

4

3

4

APPLE

2

1

2

2

APPLE

4

8

7

10

APPLE

12

10

15

17

APPLE

4

3

7

7

APPLE

2

1

2

2

APPLE

6

12

21

40

APPLE

6

3

10

10

APPLE

3

2

4

4

APPLE

2

7

5

15

APPLE

6

15

12

33

APPLE

5

12

11

29

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

2

2

4

4

APPLE

1

1

3

3

APPLE

4

6

7

7

APPLE

33

39

54

78

APPLE

51

79

97

170

APPLE

59

92

126

216

APPLE

40

54

93

149

APPLE

7

6

11

11

APPLE

7

5

11

16

APPLE

13

24

22

36

APPLE

28

36

54

90

APPLE

10

9

16

18

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

13

17

24

34

APPLE

3

2

3

3

APPLE

14

15

17

18

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

4

4

4

APPLE

181

331

407

775

APPLE

81

119

146

231

APPLE

9

10

14

17

APPLE

2

1

2

2

APPLE

7

10

14

20

APPLE

6

5

9

9

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

2

1

5

5

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

3

2

5

5

APPLE

2

4

4

APPLE

2

2
1

3

3

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

14

15

22

24

APPLE

24

24

37

53

APPLE

11

10

21

25

APPLE

13

9

26

27

APPLE

20

39

40

61

APPLE

38

52

70

101

APPLE

39

45

79

101

APPLE

6

4

9

10

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

2

2

4

APPLE

57

65

96

116

APPLE

135

216

269

438

APPLE

13

18

14

19

APPLE

3

3

3

3

APPLE

8

9

8

9

APPLE

16

22

16

22

4

4

APPLE

5

4

7

7

APPLE

16

28

26

57

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page71

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

APPLE

16

26

28

69

APPLE

6

5

9

10

APPLE

3

3

3

3

APPLE

11

12

16

22

APPLE

11

10

14

18

APPLE

2

1

2

2

APPLE

1

4

4

APPLE

1

1
1

1

1

APPLE

1

2

5

10

APPLE

4

5

9

11

APPLE

2

2

4

4

APPLE

1

2

4

8

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

2

8

4

14

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

3

3

4

5

APPLE

2

1

4

4

APPLE

2

2

3

3

APPLE

9

14

16

21

APPLE

17

38

33

77

APPLE

19

35

42

73

APPLE

10

16

19

38

APPLE

4

5

9

10

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

6

5

8

9

APPLE

13

17

29

42

APPLE

29

42

57

87

APPLE

23

32

40

71

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

3

3

4

4

APPLE

8

14

14

24

APPLE

10

27

25

75

APPLE

6

5

12

13

APPLE

4

5

7

APPLE

5

4
4

9

10

APPLE

23

28

41

51

APPLE

35

60

62

126

APPLE

42

57

77

126

APPLE

21

28

48

63

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

13

14

20

26

APPLE

15

12

26

30

APPLE

4

8

10

17

APPLE

4

5

10

11

APPLE

6

5

9

9

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

3

4

7

7

APPLE

8

10

15

20

APPLE

19

41

39

83

APPLE

18

28

31

54

APPLE

6

9

11

15

APPLE

1

1

4

4

APPLE

3

2

4

4

APPLE

2

4

8

APPLE

2

3
3

4

12

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

1

2

2

APPLE

1

1
3

5

11

APPLE

2

8

7

25

APPLE

1

3

5

12

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

8

8

12

21

APPLE

33

52

74

119

APPLE

36

58

89

149

APPLE

34

47

89

135

APPLE

1

1

5

5

APPLE

1

1

5

5

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

4

9

8

19

APPLE

5

6

9

11

APPLE

2

3

5

5

APPLE

2

2

3

3

APPLE

1

1

3

3

APPLE

1

1

3

3

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page72

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

APPLE

2

2

4

4

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

2

1

2

2

APPLE

7

8

11

11

APPLE

31

51

54

124

APPLE

27

61

61

133

APPLE

18

24

40

56

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

1

1

3

3

APPLE

16

21

29

38

APPLE

42

81

93

166

APPLE

25

34

44

55

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

3

8

6

12

APPLE

7

32

15

58

APPLE

10

18

18

34

APPLE

1

1

3

3

APPLE

1

1

3

3

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

3

2

5

5

APPLE

4

2

5

5

APPLE

19

24

33

46

APPLE

21

27

41

58

APPLE

29

44

53

97

APPLE

15

19

35

45

APPLE

1

2

3

4

APPLE

2

2

3

3

APPLE

8

9

14

15

APPLE

9

12

15

20

APPLE

4

8

10

21

APPLE

2

3

6

APPLE

6

2
5

8

10

APPLE

10

13

20

38

APPLE

13

30

26

76

APPLE

6

11

9

18

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

2

1

3

3

APPLE

2

3

4

5

APPLE

2

4

5

9

APPLE

2

2

4

4

APPLE

2

5

4

7

APPLE

4

11

9

27

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

1

3

2

6

APPLE

2

4

6

11

APPLE

1

3

3

5

APPLE

1

6

5

13

APPLE

1

10

5

26

APPLE

1

4

5

14

APPLE

4

3

6

6

APPLE

15

25

30

40

APPLE

35

86

65

143

APPLE

42

87

86

161

APPLE

26

40

41

60

APPLE

3

3

4

4

APPLE

4

9

9

17

APPLE

9

17

17

30

APPLE

11

15

21

32

APPLE

7

12

17

26

APPLE

2

2

4

4

APPLE

5

4

13

13

APPLE

2

1

3

3

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

6

4

9

11

APPLE

2

1

4

4

APPLE

3

2

4

4

APPLE

3

8

3

10

APPLE

14

12

25

28

APPLE

23

36

49

81

APPLE

4

6

7

12

APPLE

5

4

7

7

APPLE

5

3

6

6

APPLE

15

17

21

36

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page73

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

APPLE

6

6

9

11

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

5

2

5

5

APPLE

15

17

27

43

APPLE

28

51

49

97

APPLE

9

7

15

22

APPLE

2

2

2

APPLE

2

2
3

2

4

APPLE

9

9

12

14

APPLE

7

12

2

8
1

10

APPLE

2

2

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

4

4

5

7

APPLE

5

4

7

7

APPLE

1

1

3

3

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

2

2

10

10

APPLE

4

8

9

16

APPLE

8

16

20

41

APPLE

10

14

22

35

APPLE

2

2

4

4

APPLE

3

4

6

7

APPLE

1

2

5

10

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

3

5

5

7

APPLE

2

4

4

7

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

8

7

10

10

APPLE

10

10

15

19

APPLE

12

12

17

18

APPLE

8

6

11

13

APPLE

5

5

5

5

APPLE

16

17

22

22

APPLE

62

91

101

135

APPLE

132

239

279

529

APPLE

141

325

320

809

APPLE

90

113

186

286

APPLE

14

9

34

36

APPLE

12

9

20

21

APPLE

29

34

50

63

APPLE

57

83

118

199

APPLE

64

115

148

309

APPLE

41

64

94

176

APPLE

3

8

10

17

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

21

30

37

42

APPLE

86

242

228

572

APPLE

106

314

280

761

APPLE

79

130

182

317

APPLE

11

16

19

27

APPLE

1

2

4

APPLE

2

2
6

2

11

APPLE

1

3

1

3

APPLE

1

1

2

APPLE

10

2
6

11

15

APPLE

5

4

6

6

APPLE

14

13

21

30

APPLE

2

1

3

3

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

3

6

6

10

APPLE

6

14

26

42

APPLE

7

20

26

73

APPLE

2

1

4

4

APPLE

3

3

3

3

APPLE

60

76

77

87

APPLE

192

409

389

729

APPLE

272

694

684

1,643

APPLE

243

575

582

1,500

APPLE

120

140

271

391

APPLE

22

19

38

39

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page74

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

APPLE

47

69

82

113

APPLE

75

165

205

365

APPLE

54

106

153

275

APPLE

22

28

50

61

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

5

7

10

11

APPLE

21

32

47

78

APPLE

30

36

49

58

APPLE

47

64

91

141

APPLE

42

65

99

177

APPLE

6

8

19

24

APPLE

22

34

46

85

APPLE

5

4

7

7

APPLE

20

23

35

50

APPLE

20

22

32

45

APPLE

10

18

26

43

APPLE

3

2

6

APPLE

38

63

86

163

APPLE

36

47

79

130

APPLE

17

13

33

33

APPLE

3

2

3

3

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

4

2

6

6

APPLE

9

13

20

35

APPLE

10

16

27

35

APPLE

9

14

24

35

APPLE

3

2

7

7

APPLE

1

1

4

4

APPLE

3

3

7

APPLE

33

97

87

272

6

8

14

7

4
9

9

APPLE

11

13

APPLE

12

28

31

95

APPLE

2

4

4

APPLE

1

1
1

1

1

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

4

2

6

6

APPLE

10

10

16

21

APPLE

17

24

43

55

APPLE

13

41

35

96

APPLE

6

11

10

18

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

1

1

4

4

APPLE

8

14

21

29

APPLE

4

7

8

22

APPLE

2

1

5

5

APPLE

3

1

4

4

APPLE

4

6

5

7

APPLE

8

7

19

19

APPLE

1

1

4

4

APPLE

2

4

3

5

APPLE

10

16

18

35

APPLE

14

27

36

66

APPLE

12

34

42

100

APPLE

7

14

24

52

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

4

13

13

APPLE

9

4
7

18

20

APPLE

2

2

5

5

APPLE

1

1

5

5

APPLE

2

2

5

5

APPLE

1

1

5

5

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

1

1

3

3

APPLE

1

3

5

13

APPLE

3

2

5

5

APPLE

3

3

4

4

APPLE

7

12

21

28

APPLE

5

10

12

22

APPLE

1

2

2

4

APPLE

6

4

8

8

APPLE

5

3

10

10

APPLE

2

1

4

4

APPLE

1

1

5

5

APPLE

3

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page75

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

APPLE

6

5

10

13

APPLE

15

17

26

38

APPLE

8

11

13

18

APPLE

2

4

4

APPLE

3

2
2

APPLE

25

80

39

152

APPLE

29

59

56

114

APPLE

18

35

26

55

APPLE

2

4

2

4

APPLE

1

2

2

APPLE

2

1
2

3

3

APPLE

3

6

4

7

APPLE

8

15

18

34

APPLE

2

1

3

3

APPLE

2

1

4

4

APPLE

7

10

9

12

APPLE

12

11

15

19

APPLE

7

4

12

12

APPLE

2

5

5

8

APPLE

18

36

36

65

APPLE

36

47

62

93

APPLE

15

25

25

33

APPLE

8

6

14

16

APPLE

4

4

5

5

APPLE

12

22

23

44

APPLE

31

43

57

87

APPLE

29

38

59

84

APPLE

6

8

9

12

APPLE

1

1

1

1

APPLE

2

2

2

2

APPLE

1

1

2

2

APPLE

8

19

15

47

APPLE

4

6

8

14

APPLE

2

3

8

9

GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE

3

3

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page76

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page77

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page78

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Document442

Filed06 22 13

Page79

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page80

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
GOOGLE
INTEL

8

6

12

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

25

32

51

66

INTEL

107

173

216

382

INTEL

132

211

270

518

INTEL

175

311

360

755

INTEL

150

279

332

689

INTEL

119

157

247

442

INTEL

54

58

91

117

INTEL

172

206

270

423

INTEL

222

389

446

954

INTEL

203

331

409

885

INTEL

86

111

178

268

INTEL

16

10

20

20

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

8

7

11

13

INTEL

15

21

22

41

INTEL

17

27

26

42

INTEL

16

16

26

31

INTEL

4

3

5

6

INTEL

5

7

5

7

INTEL

7

10

7

10

INTEL

11

21

11

21

INTEL

9

18

9

18

INTEL

3

4

3

4

INTEL

2

2

2

2

13

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page81

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

3

6

3

6

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

INTEL

5

1
4

5

5

INTEL

4

4

4

4

INTEL

2

2

2

INTEL

1

2
1

INTEL

55

124

103

251

INTEL

72

207

173

475

INTEL

79

210

182

526

INTEL

72

118

153

285

INTEL

29

32

54

71

INTEL

9

7

14

16

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

12

12

19

24

INTEL

20

30

34

58

INTEL

33

64

63

141

INTEL

44

106

96

287

INTEL

29

55

70

141

INTEL

14

14

32

39

INTEL

3

4

3

4

INTEL

3

5

3

5

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

5

6

5

6

INTEL

4

6

4

6

INTEL

4

7

4

7

INTEL

3

3

4

4

INTEL

20

15

29

30

INTEL

81

106

121

188

INTEL

117

140

182

266

INTEL

139

219

235

411

INTEL

108

134

169

240

INTEL

49

54

79

97

INTEL

5

2

5

5

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

5

6

6

14

INTEL

3

4

4

5

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

8

19

8

19

INTEL

13

24

13

24

INTEL

16

30

16

30

INTEL

19

31

19

31

INTEL

7

8

7

8

INTEL

48

46

69

75

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

2

INTEL

287

376

502

681

INTEL

805

1,610

1,695

3,688

INTEL

969

1,864

2,142

4,438

2,258

2,557

5,983

INTEL

1,074

1

1

2

INTEL

918

1,711

2,228

4,597

INTEL

604

945

1,451

2,782

INTEL

4

9

9

INTEL

2

2

5

5

INTEL

19

23

28

38

INTEL

32

51

57

106

INTEL

59

89

106

234

INTEL

65

149

145

428

INTEL

45

88

103

230

INTEL

23

35

46

98

INTEL

3

5

5

14

INTEL

5

5

6

6

INTEL

12

21

16

32

INTEL

20

32

27

57

INTEL

21

48

33

107

INTEL

4

6

7

12

INTEL

3

7

5

11

INTEL

5

4

6

6

INTEL

7

11

10

23

26

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page82

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

3

3

INTEL

2

2

2

INTEL

7

2
8

11

12

INTEL

14

12

18

23

INTEL

47

51

76

114

INTEL

69

76

120

199

INTEL

24

19

45

61

INTEL

22

18

31

38

INTEL

21

24

26

46

INTEL

33

36

50

78

INTEL

34

43

56

102

INTEL

8

9

15

16

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

3

5

4

6

INTEL

4

5

4

5

INTEL

4

5

5

6

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

8

9

8

9

INTEL

12

18

12

18

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

3

2

7

8

INTEL

1

2

1

2

INTEL

3

5

4

10

INTEL

4

10

5

14

INTEL

6

7

9

15

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

10

13

16

INTEL

8

7
8

10

16

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

18

18

25

28

INTEL

34

39

42

48

INTEL

31

30

41

43

INTEL

41

41

63

72

INTEL

39

34

58

65

INTEL

20

18

33

38

INTEL

1

2

1

2

INTEL

3

3

4

4

INTEL

16

24

29

47

INTEL

1

1

INTEL

433

653

1,007

1,835

INTEL

149

237

388

712

INTEL

42

48

91

141

INTEL

8

8

21

25

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

11

13

17

22
110

1

1

INTEL

67

70

88

INTEL

338

506

602

965

INTEL

627

988

1,285

2,201

INTEL

729

1,140

1,594

2,801

INTEL

1

INTEL

1

1

1
1

INTEL

73

156

187

457

INTEL

24

47

78

143

INTEL

6

23

21

77

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

17

21

28

32

INTEL

79

114

156

210

INTEL

172

297

372

611

INTEL

151

305

355

780

INTEL

1

1

2

INTEL

2

2

6

6

INTEL

2

2

6

10

1

1
1

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

18

15

26

28

INTEL

3

2

6

6

INTEL

2

1

2

2

INTEL

4

4

4

INTEL

51

54

70

116

INTEL

85

121

141

303

INTEL

60

83

113

200

6

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page83

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

6

4

8

8

INTEL

19

23

24

35

INTEL

20

19

26

31

INTEL

14

18

17

21

INTEL

10

11

11

13

INTEL

15

15

24

28

INTEL

33

41

72

102

INTEL

37

36

69

95

INTEL

37

50

75

130

INTEL

15

22

37

64

INTEL

3

3

7

7

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

7

12

7

12

INTEL

6

7

6

7

INTEL

15

21

15

21

INTEL

8

9

8

9

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

5

5

8

8

INTEL

14

17

22

29

INTEL

28

49

58

110

INTEL

37

88

87

253

INTEL

21

22

44

62

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

3

2

4

INTEL

6

18

12

38

INTEL

7

22

15

46

INTEL

7

9

14

22

INTEL

1

3

3

INTEL

1

1
1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

26

34

44

73

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

2

2

3

3

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

4

4

6

7

INTEL

4

5

7

9

INTEL

6

3

7

7

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

4

4

5

5

INTEL

12

15

17

21

INTEL

23

24

35

45

INTEL

23

26

33

44

INTEL

20

36

34

68

INTEL

9

20

17

38

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

4

6

4

6

INTEL

3

4

3

4

INTEL

3

4

5

11

INTEL

21

21

30

39

INTEL

36

66

58

115

INTEL

46

82

74

150

INTEL

53

113

94

221

INTEL

43

67

75

142

INTEL

27

41

41

79

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

6

9

6

9

INTEL

5

7

5

7

INTEL

2

3

2

3

INTEL

13

17

20

26

INTEL

2

3

3

INTEL

101

117

165

218

INTEL

193

279

362

578

INTEL

240

333

445

724

INTEL

274

374

521

888

INTEL

220

273

429

661

INTEL

125

135

232

339

INTEL

4

3

4

4

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

4

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page84

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

1

1

1

12

8

14

16

23

22

31

57

INTEL

27

37

45

78

INTEL

17

19

29

47

INTEL

9

7

13

15

INTEL

5

7

10

INTEL

9

4
7

13

17

INTEL

10

7

13

15

INTEL

6

5

10

10

INTEL

1

1

4

INTEL

56

72

95

143

INTEL

113

185

204

395

INTEL

119

166

220

393

INTEL

92

115

170

260

INTEL

29

28

56

62

INTEL

5

4

8

8

INTEL

2

3

4

4

INTEL

4

4

5

5

INTEL

16

23

23

34

INTEL

27

29

42

66

INTEL

28

18

43

45

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

5

8

6

8

INTEL

4

8

4

8

INTEL

4

4

4

4

INTEL

4

5

6

7

INTEL

22

24

23

28

INTEL

53

70

59

93

INTEL

46

57

50

71

INTEL

20

26

24

35

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

9

10

13

21

INTEL

1

INTEL
INTEL

4

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

43

47

47

64

INTEL

102

126

115

164

INTEL

143

214

165

300

INTEL

113

180

129

241

INTEL

36

41

41

53

INTEL

4

4

4

INTEL

87

136

183

354

INTEL

28

46

57

130

INTEL

8

13

14

37

INTEL

3

3

5

5

INTEL

2

4

2

4

INTEL

9

11

12

16

4

INTEL

28

37

40

54

INTEL

145

222

246

375

INTEL

242

396

451

819

INTEL

196

318

395

794

INTEL

56

58

131

195

INTEL

2

3

2

3

INTEL

8

13

8

13

INTEL

3

7

3

7

INTEL

4

4

4

INTEL

2

4
3

2

3

INTEL

3

7

3

7

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

2

INTEL

49

119

83

232

INTEL

86

152

153

352

INTEL

81

122

150

305

INTEL

36

49

71

118

INTEL

14

11

26

33

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

3

4

3

4

INTEL

22

36

22

36

INTEL

32

73

32

73

INTEL

28

50

28

50

INTEL

12

14

13

15

INTEL

6

7

6

7

2

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page85

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

2

3

2

3

INTEL

6

6

6

6

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

39

39

63

79

INTEL

47

71

96

140

INTEL

66

101

132

255

INTEL

58

55

108

145

INTEL

18

16

30

32

INTEL

5

4

10

10

INTEL

1

1

3

3

INTEL

5

6

5

7

INTEL

5

7

9

11

INTEL

3

1

4

4

INTEL

2

2

3

3

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

8

9

13

16

INTEL

10

8

17

20

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

1

2

2

INTEL

35

31

59

72

INTEL

16

17

27

37

INTEL

3

3

5

6

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

1

2

2

INTEL

4

3

4

4

INTEL

17

14

18

22

INTEL

31

32

36

52

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

1

1

INTEL

1

2
1

INTEL

45

50

84

INTEL

111

170

216

417

INTEL

175

312

395

1,020

INTEL

227

385

514

1,497

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

7

8

14

15

INTEL

8

13

17

22

INTEL

14

32

37

80

INTEL

14

24

30

58

INTEL

5

5

8

10

INTEL

24

24

37

48

INTEL

48

47

69

88

INTEL

77

98

133

224

INTEL

95

104

165

263

INTEL

52

51

89

117

INTEL

18

15

28

30

INTEL

6

4

6

6

INTEL

17

21

33

42

INTEL

22

29

53

65

INTEL

28

42

58

113

INTEL

33

41

66

112

INTEL

4

10

12

INTEL

1

5
1

1

1

INTEL

43

58

54

86

INTEL

100

272

135

464

INTEL

169

391

251

731

INTEL

97

117

150

258

INTEL

91

136

154

253

INTEL

159

329

296

679

INTEL

172

353

327

879

INTEL

90

91

160

234

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

4

8

11

18

INTEL

10

18

22

34

INTEL

11

19

19

44

INTEL

23

27

39

62

INTEL

16

17

28

39

INTEL

11

10

17

26

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

1

1

3

3

2

2
2

128

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page86

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

25

30

47

67

INTEL

49

107

109

255

INTEL

73

148

149

349

INTEL

90

159

168

363

INTEL

56

86

101

180

INTEL

26

33

47

69

INTEL

19

24

29

52

INTEL

42

61

75

155

INTEL

62

87

117

252

INTEL

45

78

106

225

INTEL

20

36

47

118

INTEL

6

8

16

20

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

8

4

11

INTEL

4

5

5

9

INTEL

10

19

20

47

INTEL

5

7

12

16

INTEL

4

4

7

9

INTEL

5

5

8

8

INTEL

5

4

6

7

INTEL

6

6

6

6

INTEL

8

8

11

12

INTEL

9

9

11

12

INTEL

14

14

17

21

INTEL

8

7

12

12

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

16

14

22

22

INTEL

5

6

7

9

INTEL

11

11

15

18

INTEL

7

8

10

14

INTEL

11

15

19

28

INTEL

3

3

7

7

INTEL

2

3

3

INTEL

1

2
1

1

1

INTEL

21

26

38

50

INTEL

63

95

108

187

INTEL

60

80

119

178

INTEL

114

259

253

697

INTEL

72

108

149

233

INTEL

20

21

43

52

INTEL

25

23

36

40

INTEL

40

55

60

96

INTEL

50

77

89

168

INTEL

64

90

120

199

INTEL

32

47

53

98

INTEL

23

19

39

46

INTEL

18

17

32

34

INTEL

3

4

6

6

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

6

6

7

9

INTEL

16

15

25

31

INTEL

38

45

57

83

INTEL

70

91

120

204

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

3

2

6

7

INTEL

2

3

3

INTEL

1

2
1

1

1

INTEL

1

2

1

2

INTEL

2

4

5

9

INTEL

4

3

6

6

INTEL

4

2

4

4

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

4

2

4

4

INTEL

3

2

3

3

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

4

7

5

9

INTEL

8

5

9

12

INTEL

5

3

7

8

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

1

2

2

INTEL

2

2

2

2

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page87

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

6

5

INTEL

697

816

1,703

2,789

INTEL

206

212

509

715

INTEL

1

1

1

INTEL

4

1
2

4

4

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

1

2

2

INTEL

1

1
2

INTEL

255

362

452

682

INTEL

395

826

834

1,794

INTEL

403

725

830

1,669

INTEL

419

656

860

1,585

INTEL

249

277

415

592

INTEL

78

83

143

186

INTEL

2

2

3

3

INTEL

12

20

17

30

INTEL

19

22

24

37

INTEL

16

24

21

40

INTEL

10

12

15

19

INTEL

5

4

5

5

INTEL

6

6

7

INTEL

80

86

128

169

INTEL

221

293

421

678

INTEL

272

332

503

768

INTEL

438

1,215

993

2,815

INTEL

275

466

595

1,068

INTEL

97

121

191

278

INTEL

9

7

13

13

INTEL

141

186

246

364

INTEL

265

508

536

1,185

INTEL

254

461

552

1,088

INTEL

269

438

583

1,122

INTEL

199

259

426

693

INTEL

76

90

163

238

INTEL

4

4

8

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

23

36

37

58

INTEL

43

63

73

123

INTEL

42

58

77

114

INTEL

40

46

74

96

INTEL

47

44

63

86

INTEL

20

13

27

27

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

4

4

4

4

INTEL

6

8

6

8

INTEL

1

1

1

INTEL

49

55

82

126

INTEL

25

26

51

60

INTEL

6

5

11

11

INTEL

8

9

11

14

INTEL

26

23

31

35

INTEL

62

79

99

151

INTEL

2
4

3
5

2

INTEL

4

5

INTEL

22

33

22

33

INTEL

24

34

24

34

INTEL

9

12

9

12

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

3

3

INTEL

3

2

4

4

INTEL

5

4

6

7

INTEL

24

38

39

69

INTEL

35

42

50

74

INTEL

17

25

26

43

INTEL

31

23

48

52

INTEL

181

186

337

422

INTEL

18

21

42

63

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

34

30

46

54

INTEL

139

141

212

253

INTEL

349

394

568

821

9

1

11

2

7

8

1

3

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page88

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

662

832

1,110

1,825

INTEL

734

913

1,334

2,150

INTEL

510

548

972

1,360

INTEL

1

2

2

INTEL

2

1
2

2

2

INTEL

4

4

4

INTEL

69

260

128

490

INTEL

66

108

117

211

INTEL

24

48

44

95

INTEL

11

10

17

17

INTEL

31

30

56

61

INTEL

49

43

75

89

INTEL

74

71

115

147

INTEL

48

42

72

97

INTEL

10

8

11

11

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

3

2

4

4

INTEL

3

3

5

5

INTEL

3

3

4

4

INTEL

8

8

8

8

INTEL

15

18

15

18

INTEL

21

32

21

32

INTEL

28

51

28

51

INTEL

20

29

20

29

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

1

2

1

2

INTEL

13

16

22

30

INTEL

45

54

74

105

INTEL

66

70

109

151

INTEL

81

140

162

314

INTEL

78

112

154

270

INTEL

21

24

53

61

INTEL

21

20

32

35

INTEL

7

4

7

7

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

4

3

5

5

INTEL

8

6

11

11

INTEL

124

204

250

478

INTEL

126

196

271

478

INTEL

1

1

1

INTEL

135

189

315

INTEL

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

6

30

14

71

INTEL

5

14

14

32

INTEL

4

7

9

20

INTEL

2

1

3

4

INTEL

6

2

7

7

INTEL

3

3

6

6

INTEL

15

13

22

27

INTEL

14

19

21

47

INTEL

10

12

21

33

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

5

85

14

91

INTEL

11

69

21

79

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

9

14

17

23

INTEL

11

9

17

17

INTEL

25

37

43

72

INTEL

34

59

66

157

INTEL

42

65

81

168

INTEL

26

36

49

90

INTEL

5

7

11

16

INTEL

12

11

31

43

INTEL

38

29

51

55

INTEL

5

4

6

INTEL

282

296

431

562

INTEL

606

959

1,130

2,027

INTEL

832

1,322

1,597

3,069

INTEL

945

1,636

1,954

4,103

4

1

540
1

9

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page89

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTEL

784

1,144

1,634

3,032

INTEL

398

520

865

1,412

INTEL

17

18

24

34

INTEL

43

59

67

140

INTEL

37

60

64

139

INTEL

39

38

70

94

INTEL

17

13

24

33

INTEL

7

5

8

9

INTEL

11

16

19

40

INTEL

12

15

20

31

INTEL

5

8

12

14

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

2

2

3

3

INTEL

21

24

37

44

INTEL

5

5

9

9

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

27

35

37

58

INTEL

46

75

89

148

INTEL

68

100

114

207

INTEL

18

17

23

33

INTEL

6

4

8

8

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

6

5

9

9

INTEL

17

21

27

38

INTEL

1

2

1

2

INTEL

14

12

20

21

INTEL

28

31

39

74

INTEL

22

40

37

75

INTEL

22

34

37

75

INTEL

7

8

11

21

INTEL

3

2

3

INTEL

58

68

89

125

INTEL

154

194

260

412

1

INTEL

3

1

INTEL

187

337

335

758

INTEL

200

335

345

799

INTEL

87

94

143

208

INTEL

8

7

9

10

INTEL

11

10

14

19

INTEL

40

45

65

81

INTEL

83

99

132

191

INTEL

112

137

179

287

INTEL

143

176

240

351

INTEL

134

160

237

354

INTEL

92

107

164

244

INTEL

2

4

5

INTEL

51

70

77

117

INTEL

107

173

219

386

INTEL

140

320

300

821

INTEL

137

282

313

777

INTEL

83

106

184

283

INTEL

17

20

33

50

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

28

32

40

55

INTEL

49

81

82

159

INTEL

57

88

99

183

INTEL

65

78

98

158

INTEL

38

40

61

85

INTEL

8

10

12

20

INTEL

3

4

3

4

INTEL

12

15

12

15

INTEL

9

13

9

13

INTEL

30

46

30

46

INTEL

17

22

17

22

INTEL

7

8

7

8

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

9

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page90

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

1

Manager
2

Years

Employee

INTEL

2

2

INTEL

2

3

2

4

INTEL

9

13

21

33

INTEL

9

15

20

40

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

4

4

6

6

INTEL

2

3

3

INTEL

10

2
9

12

13

INTEL

18

16

28

29

INTEL

1

1

2

2

INTEL

5

3

7

7

INTEL

19

30

43

70

INTEL

12

15

21

32

INTEL

9

6

11

11

INTEL

2

1

2

2

INTEL

41

35

54

65

INTEL

126

154

194

281

INTEL

229

336

408

754

INTEL

282

404

515

1,015

INTEL

219

269

398

648

INTEL

97

90

170

221

INTEL

32

26

56

62

INTEL

5

5

11

11

INTEL

3

4

3

4

INTEL

24

26

31

38

INTEL

55

85

107

182

INTEL

57

63

101

142

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

1

2

2

INTEL

2

1
1

2

2

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

4

5

7

INTEL

5

4
4

6

7

INTEL

6

6

10

13

INTEL

13

22

24

39

INTEL

18

34

40

89

INTEL

18

34

41

78

INTEL

4

5

8

12

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

2

1

2

2

INTEL

7

5

10

10

INTEL

9

8

11

13

INTEL

5

12

9

22

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

2

3

2

3

INTEL

4

5

4

5

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

22

15

27

33

INTEL

6

5

8

14

INTEL

6

8

8

10

INTEL

25

26

38

47

INTEL

60

65

84

140

INTEL

45

52

66

122

INTEL

18

17

32

40

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

5

6

5

6

INTEL

14

22

14

22

INTEL

11

21

11

21

INTEL

5

4

8

8

INTEL

6

6

13

15

INTEL

3

3

7

10

INTEL

1

1

3

3

INTEL

31

38

51

61

INTEL

62

76

107

157

INTEL

65

78

117

165

INTEL

56

61

97

132

INTEL

17

19

30

36

INTEL

4

4

8

11

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

16

15

26

34

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page91

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

INTEL

50

INTEL
INTEL

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

58

87

129

68

84

121

174

57

152

137

362

INTEL

44

70

95

168

INTEL

16

24

34

65

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

6

6

8

10

INTEL

15

16

16

24

INTEL

17

16

18

23

INTEL

14

16

18

22

INTEL

2

2

2

2

INTEL

3

2

3

3

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

3

3

3

3

INTEL

17

13

19

21

INTEL

17

15

18

19

INTEL

27

21

34

39

INTEL

12

11

20

21

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

31

27

42

50

INTEL

50

80

101

160

INTEL

1

1

1

INTEL

58

103

108

203

INTEL

76

129

150

310

INTEL

51

71

106

181

INTEL

20

22

35

56

INTEL

1

1

1

1

INTEL

1

1

1

1

11

19

19

32

INTUIT

1

INTUIT

23

34

35

66

INTUIT

109

116

182

296

INTUIT

57

61

78

98

INTUIT

28

22

48

49

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

2

6

INTUIT

19

51

43

INTUIT

4

4

4

5

INTUIT

7

7

10

12

6

117

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

16

21

24

43

INTUIT

23

28

41

62

INTUIT

1

1

2

2

INTUIT

6

5

7

9

INTUIT

5

7

7

11

INTUIT

10

8

14

14

INTUIT

3

2

3

3

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

1

4

4

INTUIT

24

42

37

74

INTUIT

4

4

4

4

INTUIT

10

7

16

18

INTUIT

2

3

2

3

INTUIT

20

37

28

59

INTUIT

2

5

2

7

INTUIT

42

46

63

78

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

38

54

58

90

INTUIT

3

3

4

4

INTUIT

2

2

3

3

INTUIT

2

1

2

2

INTUIT

3

2

4

4

INTUIT

2

1

3

3

INTUIT

1

1

2

2

INTUIT

5

6

7

10

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

2

2

INTUIT

1

2

2

2

INTUIT

3

4

3

6

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

5

3

5

5

INTUIT

3

2

3

3

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page92

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1
1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

1
3

2

5

INTUIT

4

3

4

4

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

68

72

115

1

150

INTUIT

2

1

2

2

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

1

4

4

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

1

2

2

INTUIT

11

20

17

31

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

6

3

6

7

INTUIT

7

7

8

9

INTUIT

3

5

3

5

INTUIT

7

8

7

8

INTUIT

5

6

6

9

INTUIT

18

29

20

32
1

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

4

5

4

5

INTUIT

42

48

49

62

INTUIT

9

10

9

10

INTUIT

14

16

16

19

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

3

2

3

3

INTUIT

6

8

8

INTUIT

3

3
3

INTUIT

82

113

116

4

4

193

INTUIT

3

4

3

4

INTUIT

12

16

19

32

INTUIT

58

72

93

144

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

59

83

78

107

INTUIT

12

17

12

17

INTUIT

34

33

43

54

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

24

25

24

28

1

INTUIT

5

5

5

6

INTUIT

3

2

4

4

INTUIT

5

7

6

7

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

4

2

4

INTUIT

63

90

91

4

165

INTUIT

2

2

3

3

INTUIT

8

8

10

11

INTUIT

57

81

71

110

INTUIT

9

12

12

15

INTUIT

4

2

5

5

INTUIT

41

51

59

87

INTUIT

3

4

6

9

INTUIT

4

3

4

4

INTUIT

4

7

4

7

INTUIT

2

4

3

4

INTUIT

2

4

4

5

INTUIT

6

6

7

8

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

3

2

3

3

INTUIT

1

3

1

3

INTUIT

4

1

4

4

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

3

3

3

3

INTUIT

4

4

5

5

INTUIT

7

7

7

7

INTUIT

2

1

3

3

INTUIT

26

26

31

33

INTUIT

5

5

5

5

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page93

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

INTUIT

5

3

INTUIT

12

INTUIT

9

INTUIT

4

INTUIT

Manager

Years

Employee

6

7

15

12

15

7

18

19

4

4

8

4
6

10

10

INTUIT

2

1

2

2

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

1
2

2

2

INTUIT

11

15

13

18

INTUIT

110

132

163

232

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

1

1

2

2

INTUIT

1

2

1

2

INTUIT

5

9

9

16

INTUIT

2

3

4

6

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

26

26

34

48

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

3

1

3

3

INTUIT

2

2

4

4

INTUIT

2

5

4

8

INTUIT

1

2

3

INTUIT

235

392

396

699

INTUIT

98

176

98

178

INTUIT

9

9

11

14

INTUIT

11

13

INTUIT

3

9
4

INTUIT

86

132

140

3

5

14
4

251

INTUIT

1

1

2

1
2

1

INTUIT

2

2

INTUIT

5

2

6

6

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

17

52

17

52

INTUIT

15

14

23

28

INTUIT

11

29

26

59

INTUIT

30

34

46

66

INTUIT

9

11

13

18

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

26

32

34

48

INTUIT

18

23

21

30

INTUIT

1

4

2

4

INTUIT

3

5

3

5

INTUIT

9

13

10

19

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

35

40

53

81

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

4

3

4

4

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

24

36

24

38
14

INTUIT

3

5

6

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

113

151

187

299

1

INTUIT

8

16

11

21

INTUIT

34

40

51

99

INTUIT

2

1

2

2

INTUIT

8

10

10

17

INTUIT

340

792

696

1,878

INTUIT

91

176

159

346

INTUIT

34

58

34

58

INTUIT

54

105

54

105

INTUIT

18

31

25

53

INTUIT

59

125

114

219

INTUIT

48

70

75

156

INTUIT

34

33

43

66

INTUIT

23

12

31

33

INTUIT

3

2

4

4

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

6

6

8

11

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page94

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

8

11

8

6

8

8

7

15

7

15

INTUIT

9

INTUIT
INTUIT

12

INTUIT

4

6

8

16

INTUIT

20

24

31

44

INTUIT

10

7

13

13

INTUIT

2

2

2

INTUIT

6

2
4

6

7

INTUIT

13

12

19

27

INTUIT

6

12

11

21

INTUIT

245

380

466

922

INTUIT

41

45

62

82

INTUIT

17

22

17

22

INTUIT

35

58

63

127

INTUIT

5

6

9

12

INTUIT

18

15

20

30

INTUIT

8

8

9

10

INTUIT

1

1

2

2

INTUIT

2

2

2

2

INTUIT

3

2

3

3

INTUIT

2

1

2

2

INTUIT

4

5

5

6

INTUIT

2

2

2

3

INTUIT

5

6

5

7

INTUIT

44

74

44

74
10

INTUIT

7

7

8

INTUIT

2

1

2

INTUIT

42

81

66

117

2

INTUIT

10

9

21

26

INTUIT

3

6

4

10

INTUIT

6

7

8

INTUIT

3

6
3

4

4

INTUIT

3

2

3

3

INTUIT

1

2

2

INTUIT

5

1
7

7

9

INTUIT

6

6

10

12

INTUIT

5

7

6

13

INTUIT

2

3

2

3

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

3

4

4

6

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

8

12

10

18

INTUIT

4

5

6

7

INTUIT

6

7

6

7

INTUIT

7

7

11

12

INTUIT

36

39

50

69

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

1

2

2

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

17

19

18

24

INTUIT

18

13

26

27

INTUIT

9

11

11

15

INTUIT

7

6

11

13

INTUIT

1

1

1

INTUIT

2

1
7

3

10

INTUIT

9

8

13

15

INTUIT

4

4

7

INTUIT

5

7
5

6

6

INTUIT

11

13

13

24
2

INTUIT

1

1

2

INTUIT

3

2

3

3

INTUIT

24

32

36

53

INTUIT

40

46

62

81

INTUIT

3

3

5

5

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

5

5

5

6

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

INTUIT

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

5

6

10

10

LUCASFILM

6

7

12

14

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page95

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

LUCASFILM

4

7

5

7

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

7

11

14

19

LUCASFILM

15

32

37

67

LUCASFILM

4

4

8

LUCASFILM

1

8
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

7

7

13

13

LUCASFILM

3

8

1

3
1

8

LUCASFILM

3

3

LUCASFILM

2

3

2

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

18

26

36

45

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

6

7

6

7

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

4

4

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

3

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

3

4

6

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

3

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

8

4

15

LUCASFILM

3

7

2

4
2

7

LUCASFILM

4

4

1

LUCASFILM

3

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

4

5

6

8

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

5

10

8

16

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

4

8

10

15

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

3

3

7

7

LUCASFILM

1

2

3

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

LUCASFILM

4

2
4

10

10

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
3

2

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

5

7

9

10

LUCASFILM

12

15

24

28

LUCASFILM

2

2

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

2

4

4

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

5

5

6

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page96

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

LUCASFILM

1

3

3

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

4

1
4

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

3

8

8

17

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

3

3

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

2

2

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

3

3

7

7

LUCASFILM

3

4

5

7

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

3

7

7

15

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

3

3

3

3

LUCASFILM

3

5

6

9

LUCASFILM

2

2

6

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

1

1

LUCASFILM

3

3

7

7

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
2

2

4

LUCASFILM

1

3

3

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

4

6

13

14

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

3

4

6

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

2

4

4

8

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

Years

Case5 11cv 02509LHK

Filed06 22 13

Document442

Page97

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

1
5

5

13

LUCASFILM

1

5

3

12

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

1
2

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

2

2

6

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

4

4

7

7

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

5

5

7

7

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

3

3

9

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

6

7

11

11

LUCASFILM

2

4

4

7

LUCASFILM

3

3

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

2

3

4

LUCASFILM

2

3

3

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

3

5

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

7

7

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

3

6

12

18

LUCASFILM

15

23

31

46

LUCASFILM

1

3

2

4

LUCASFILM

3

3

7

7

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

6

8

14

17

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

9

10

9

10

LUCASFILM

11

23

21

38

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

5

5

13

13

Years

Case511cv 02509LHK

Filed062213

Document442

Page98

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical

Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

106

of

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

Years

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

3

3

6

6

LUCASFILM

4

7

8

10

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

3

4

5

LUCASFILM

2

5

2

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

3

4

7

8

LUCASFILM

2

5

6

11

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

3

3

6

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

3

4

9

11

LUCASFILM

5

12

10

17

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

4

4

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

16

33

41

70

LUCASFILM

13

15

29

31

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

3

5

5

6

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

3

3

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

15

23

38

52

LUCASFILM

4

5

4

5

LUCASFILM

2

2

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

5

5

9

9

LUCASFILM

2

2

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

2

3

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

3

4

9

LUCASFILM

2

3

6

9

LUCASFILM

2

3

4

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

3

5

5

LUCASFILM

2

2

4

4

1

Case511cv 02509LHK

Filed062213

Document442

Page99

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical

Employer

Title

Class

2005
Managers

106

of

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

Years

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

2

5

4

9

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

2

3

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

4

4

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

2

5

5

11

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

6

17

14

36

LUCASFILM

2

4

6

9

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

12

33

27

55

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

2

4

5

LUCASFILM

9

10

15

16

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

6

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

30

63

69

121

LUCASFILM

11

15

19

20

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

3

3

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

3

4

3

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

2

4

8

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

2

5

5

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

4

4

7

7

LUCASFILM

1

1

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

2

3

4

6

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

7

14

12

20

LUCASFILM

5

6

9

10

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

2

4

4

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

3

5

7

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

2

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

2

2

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1

2

2

1

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document442

Filed0622 13

Page100

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Class

2005
Managers

Title

of

106

Titles

2009
Employees

Manager

Years

Employee

LUCASFILM

3

10

8

24

LUCASFILM

3

17

6

36

LUCASFILM

1

5

2

10

LUCASFILM

3

5

9

LUCASFILM

2

5
6

5

16

LUCASFILM

1

1

3

3

LUCASFILM

1

1

1

LUCASFILM

1

1
1

2

2

LUCASFILM

2

5

4

9

LUCASFILM

1

2

2

LUCASFILM

1

1
3

3

6

2

1

2

2

1

1

3

3

6

3

13

13

25

113

36

385

7

9

9

18

FIX

7

22

8

39

FIXLEAD

2

1

2

2

15

11

24

36

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

360 DEGREE

360 DEGREE TECH
ADMINISTRATOR
ANIMATOR

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

ANIMATOR

SUPERVISING

5

3

6

6

10

6

15

15

CHARACTER

1

1

3

3

GRAPHIC

10

9

18

25

ARCHITECT

SYSTEM

AFTER

ARTIST
ARTIST

ARTIST

EFFECTS

MOTION

2

2

2

2

SKETCH

21

23

29

67

ARTIST

STORY

21

39

37

135

STORY

DEVELOPMENT

8

3

10

11

18

13

24

33

10

4

13

14

ARTIST

PIXAR

ARTIST

PIXAR
PIXAR

DEPT

DIRECTING

ANIMATOR

PIXAR
PIXAR

LEAD

TECH

ANIMATOR

PIXAR
PIXAR

LEAD

ANIMATOR

PIXAR
PIXAR

CREATIVE

ARTIST

GRAPHIC

PIXAR

ART

PIXAR

ART DIRECTOR

DIRECTOR
SHADING

PIXAR

CGI PAINTER

9

14

11

26

PIXAR

2

2

1

1
1

2

PIXAR

CHARACTER DESIGNER
CREATIVE
RESOURCES ARTIST

1

1

PIXAR

DESIGNER

1

1

2

2

3

3

3

4

1
1

5

5

1

1

1

1

14

6

22

29

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

1

1

5

5

2

1

3

3

2

1

3

3

2

1

2

2

1

1

5

5

2

1

5

5

1

1

4

4

1

1

2

2

2

1

5

5

1

1

5

5

3

2

6

7

2

2

3

3

1

1

5

5

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

DESIGNER CAMERA
DESIGNER ENVIRONMENTAL
DESIGNER

DESIGNER PRODUCTION
DESIGNER

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

LEAD

DEVELOPER RENDERMAN PRODUCTS
DIR

MANAGEMENT

ARTIST

DIR

CREATIVE

ARTISTS

DIR MEDIA

SYSTEMS

DIR RENDERMAN PRODUCT
DIR STUDIO
DIR SYSTEMS
DIR

DEV

TOOLS

INFRASTRUCTURE

TECHNICAL

PIXAR
PIXAR

SHADING

DESIGN

PIXAR
PIXAR

GRAPHIC

ARTISTS

ENGINEER

MANAGER

ENGINEERING

ENGINEER API QUALITY ASSURANC
ENGINEER

APPLICATIONS

ENGINEER

ASSOCIATE

PIXAR

ENGINEER ASSURANCE AUTOMATION

1

1

4

4

PIXAR

ENGINEER EDITORIAL PIPELINE
ENGINEER IMAGE MASTERING

1

3

5

2

2
2

4

4

1

1

4

4

3

4

7

2

5
4

6

12

1

1

3

3

1

3

5

14

1

1

1

1

3

3

7

8

2

1

5

5

9

29

19

78

3

1

5

5

2

5

5

16

3

9

10

24

2

1

5

5

2

2

5

7

1

1

5

19

66

50

2

2

4

5

1

1

5

5

1

1

1

1

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

ENGINEER

LEAD

ENGINEER LEAD SOFTWARE
ENGINEER MEDIA SYSTEMS
ENGINEER

MENV

ENGINEER
ENGINEER

SUPPORT

PIPELINE

PIPELINE ROTATION

PNG LEAD SOFTWARE
ENGINEER PNG QUALITYASSURANC
ENGINEER PNG SOFTWARE
ENGINEER PNG SR SOFTWARE
ENGINEER

ENGINEER PRODUCTION
ENGINEER

QUALITY

ENGINEER

SUPPORT

ASSURANCE

RECORDING

ENGINEER RENDERMAN

SUPPORT

ENGINEER SCREENING ROOM
ENGINEER SOFTWARE
ENGINEER SOFTWARE
ENGINEER SOFTWARE

GRAPHICS

TECHSUPPORT

ENGINEER SOFTWARE TEMPORARY

5

191

Years

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document442

Filed0622 13

Page101

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

1

1

1

2

3

6

7

9

22

22

2

5
2

6

6

2

1

3

3

2

2

7

2

5
1

3

3

DEVELOPER

1

1

4

4

DEVELOPER

1

1

5

5

2

2

5

6

3

3

5

6

1

1

1

1

18

19

26

58

2

1

2

2

3

3

7

7

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

1

4

4

2

1

5

5

2

1

5

5

3

2

5

5

2

1

2

2

1

1

2

2

3

2

6

7

2

2

4

4

3

1

5

5

1

1

2

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

4

4

1

1
1

4

4

2

1

4

4

10

12

15

28

9

6

11

15

2

1

4

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

2

6

9

13

19

1

1

3

3

1

4

5

15
2

ENGINEER STUDIO SUPPORT

SW INFRASTRUCTURE

ENGINEER
ENGINEER

TECHNICAL

APPS

INTERACTION

INTRANET

PIXAR
PIXAR

DESIGNER

DESIGNER PNG

LAYOUT
LAYOUT
MEDIA

ARTIST

ARTIST

LEAD

SYSTEMS COORDINATOR

MGR 360
MGR

GROUP
GROUP

APPLICATIONS

MGR BUILD
MGR DESKTOP SYSTEMS
MGR FINANCIAL SYSTEMS
MGR IMAGE MASTERING
MGR ITCONSTRUCTION
MGR LEAD PROJ STUDIO TOOLS
MGR MEDIA SYSTEMS
MGR PROJECT
MGR QUALITY ASSURANCE
MGR SR PROJECT STUDIO TOOLS
MGR SW INFRASTRUCTURE
MGR SYSTEMS INFRASTRUCTURE
MGR SYSTEMS OPERATIONS
MGR TOOLS WORKFLOW
MGR USER INTERFACE
PAINTER DIGITAL
PAINTER MATTE

PNG GROUP

PIXAR

PIXAR

SUPPORT

IMAGE MASTERING COORDINATOR

PIXAR

PIXAR

Employee

1

SR MEDIA SYSTEM
ENGINEER SR SOFTWARE
ENGINEER SR SW INFRASTRUCTURE

PIXAR

PIXAR

Years

ENGINEER SR AUTOMATION
ENGINEER

PIXAR
PIXAR

Manager

11

PIXAR
PIXAR

Employees

3

PIXAR

PIXAR

2009

6

HR APPLICATION

PIXAR

Titles

1

PIXAR

PIXAR

106

TEST

FINANCIAL

PIXAR

2005
Managers

Title

ENGINEER SOFTWARE

PIXAR

PIXAR

Class

of

LEAD

MGR PNG
PROJECT MGR RENDERMAN
PROJECT MGR STUDIO TOOLS
PROJECT

RAPD PROTOTYPE COMPUTER
RENDER

PIPELINE

1

2

1

PIXAR

RESIDENT

SOFTWARE

ENGINEER

1

1

1

1

PIXAR

RESIDENT

TECHNICAL

DIRECTOR

3

41

4

41

1

1

1

1

9

6

21

26

7

2

9

10

2

1

3

3

2

2

2

2

5

16

14

57

ASSET

2

2

3

4

JR

1

1

2

2

JR MAC

1

2

4

7

LEAD

1

3

1

3

SR

5

11

19

47

1

1

2

2

1

1

2

62

292

131

841

31

41

47

94

1

1

1

1

1

2

5

6

1

1

1

1

2

2

5

6

1

1

5

5

PIXAR

PIXAR

RESIDENT

ARTIST

SPECIALIST

SCULPTOR

VP TECHNOLOGY

PIXAR

SR

PIXAR

STORY

PIXAR

SYSTEMS

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR
PIXAR

ARTIST

DIGITAL

ADMINISTRATOR

SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR

SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATOR
SYSTEMS

PIXAR
PIXAR

PILOT

SCIENTIST SR

PIXAR

PIXAR

TEST

RESIDENT

PIXAR

PIXAR

ANIMATION

SYSTEMS
TECHNICAL

DIRECTOR

DIRECTOR

TECHNICAL

DIRECTOR

TECHNICAL

LEAD

ROTATION

LEAD BACKUP GROUP

TECHNICAL

LEAD

TECHNICAL

ANALYST

COORDINATOR

IMAGMASTERING

LEAD MEDIA

TECHNICAL

TECHNICAL
LEAD

SYSTEMS

RENDERING

2

PIXAR

TECHNICAL

LEAD

STORAGE

1

1

1

1

PIXAR

TECHNICAL

LEAD

TELECOM

2

1

5

5

2

2

4

4

3

1

4

4

PIXAR
PIXAR

TECHNICAL
TECHNICAL

WRITER

WRITER

API

TECH DIRECTOR CRTV

SVCS

1

9

5

22

PIXAR

TECH DIRECTOR DEPT

SUPV

13

25

18

53

PIXAR

TECH DIRECTOR LEAD CRTV

1

1

5

5

18

11

34

36

1

1

1

1

2

1

3

3

PIXAR

PIXAR

TECH DIRECTOR

PIXAR

TECH DIR

PIXAR

SVCS

SUPERVISING

SR ANIM SCIENTIST

TEST PILOT LEAD

Years

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Filed0622 13

Document442

Page102

Manager and Employee Counts by Employers and
Technical
Employer

Class

2005

USER

PIXAR

INTERFACE

VP ADVANCED
VP SOFTWARE

PIXAR
PIXAR

WORKFLOW

PIXAR

6

8

1

2

2

1
3

3

3

6

7

1

1

1

1

1
2

1

1

2

3

3

2

DESIGNER

3

1

ARTIST

1

3

ENGINEERING

INTERACTION

1

3

3

Notes

1
2
3

Google data does not have Manager
Column Managers
Column Manager

Source

Dr

Leamer’s

and Employees
Years

information

show the count of unique Manager

and Employee

backup data

Years

show

the

total

Employee

1

2

TECHNOLOGY

WORKFLOW

PIXAR

Years

1

1

VP TECHNOLOGY

PIXAR

Manager

Employees

4

DESIGNER

VP SYSTEMS

PIXAR

Titles

1

VISUAL DESIGNER

PIXAR

106

2009

Managers

Title

TEST PILOT SENIOR

PIXAR

of

count

IDs
of

and Employee

unique Manager

IDs
IDs

by Employer
and Employee

and Job
IDs

Title during

2005

by year and employer

2009
for

each

of the

years

in

2005

2009

Years

Case5 11 cv 02509 LHK

Document442

APPENDIX

Filed0622 13
E2

Page103

of

106

Employee Counts by Employers and Year
Technical

Class

2005

2009

Unique

Employee

Employer

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

ADOBE

2,202

2,216

2,277

2,400

2,551

3,603

APPLE

3,343

3,673

4,231

4,933

5,571

6,908

GOOGLE

2,258

3,774

5,286

6,376

6,800

8,082

INTEL

28,989

27,780

26,709

26,390

26,458

37,338

INTUIT

1,592

1,849

2,237

2,344

2,230

3,719

2

295

587

572

626

869

478

550

568

666

704

Counts

848

LUCASFILM
PIXAR

Note LUCASFILM
Source

Dr

data does not have

Leamer’s backup

data

title

information

2005 2009

before 2006 hence the low number in 2005

Case511cv 02509 LHK

Document442

APPENDIX

Filed062213

Page104

of

106

E3

Manager Counts by EmployersandYear
Technical

Class

2005

2009

Unique

2006

2007

ADOBE

425

448

428

464

493

847

APPLE

689

761

860

1,050

1,155

1,615

INTEL

5,663

4,232

4,007

4,003

3,983

8,135

INTUIT

418

448

537

542

519

1,095

2

142

199

181

184

238

72

72

80

85

132

LUCASFILM

72

PIXAR

Note

1 Google
Source

Dr

data does

not have

Leamersbackup

Manager
data

information

2008

2009

Manager

2005

Employer

2005 2009

Counts

Case511cv 02509 LHK

Intel

Document442

APPENDIX

Filed062213
F

Page105

of

106

Employee Counts by Job Function
Class 2005 to 2009

Technical

Notes

1Column

Employees

shows

2Column

Employee

Years

Source

Intel

compensation

the

count

shows

data

the

of

unique Employee

total count

76586DOC001050

of

AEO

IDs

by Job

unique Employee

xls

Dr Leamers

Function
IDs

backup

by

Year

data

and Job Function

for each

of

the years

in

2005

2009

Case511cv 02509 LHK

Intel

Dr

Leamersbackup

APPENDIX

Filed062213

G

Page106

Employee Counts by Region

Technical

Source

Document442

data

Class 2005 to 2009

of

106