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: 415 391 5400
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 815463 4756
Fax 815463 4758
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?