A plaintiff in a lawsuit over "no-poach" hiring practices at Silicon Valley's largest companies is taking dramatic action to stop approval of the $324 million settlement reached last month.

Michael Devine, a 46-year-old freelance programmer who is one of the lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit, has penned a letter (PDF) to US District Judge Lucy Koh describing the settlement as "unfair and unjust."

In the letter, Devine opposes the settlement reached by his own lawyers, who negotiated with Adobe, Apple, Intel, and Google to arrive at the $324 million sum. Last month, one of those lawyers described the deal as "an excellent resolution of the case that will benefit class members."

Devine sees it differently, and he would prefer a trial to a stunted settlement check. "The Class wants a chance at real justice," wrote Devine. "We want our day in court."

If approved, the settlement will result in a payment of no more than a few thousand dollars to each of the 64,000 class members. The $324 million sum is a lot of money, but it's a drop in the proverbial bucket to the tech behemoths who are the defendants in this case. The New York Times, which first reported Devine's objection this morning, notes that Intel, Google, and Adobe are holding more than $80 billion in cash between them, while Apple has more than $150 billion in the bank.

It's also a pittance compared to the actual wage suppression that plaintiffs believe took place because of the deals between Silicon Valley CEOs to not "cold call" each others' engineers with job offers. Google raised annual compensation 10 percent company wide after its "no-poach" deal was rejected by Facebook, he notes. The settlement payment, by contrast, doesn't amount to even one percent of the class members' salaries for the period in question. "There's no justice for the class in that, nor is there any real deterrent to future wrongdoing," he writes. "We want a chance at achieving real justice." The letter continues:

As an analogy, if a shoplifter is caught on video stealing a $400 iPad from the Apple Store, would a fair and just resolution be for the shoplifter to pay Apple $40, keep the iPad, and walk away with no record or admission of wrongdoing? Of course not, nor is such a resolution appropriate in our case. Perhaps, though, the prevalence of corporate crime is in part due to the absence of real justice for the victims in the courtroom? Why, with such uniquely compelling evidence in hand, would we short-circuit this case? Please, Your Honor, allow us our day in court.

Devine's case goes to the heart of what some critics of the class action system have pointed out. The system gives power, and significant sums of money, to the lawyers in the case. But it leaves class members with meager compensation without any clear path to resist a bad deal.

In his letter, Devine writes that his lawyers didn't even tell him the mediation that led to the settlement was taking place.

[A]fter learning of this settlement, I informed Plaintiffs' counsel in writing that I found it inadequate and that I intended, on behalf of the Class, to oppose it. Despite this, Plaintiffs' counsel proceeded with informing the Court that a settlement agreement had been reached and thus litigation was halted. Is the role of Class Representative a mere formality absent substance? Does this case belong to the Plaintiffs' counsel rather than the Class? No and no. This case belongs to the Class and we wish to proceed with the litigation. The tentative settlement, if it stands, amounts to big profits for Plaintiffs' counsel, insulation from real liability for the Defendants, and locks in a significant net loss for the Class. Therefore, on behalf of the Class, I respectfully ask that you reject this settlement so that we may have our day in court and have a real shot at justice.

"Made the whole industry look bad"

There were already a few objectors to this settlement. Especially with such a large class, that's not unusual. Devine's objection stands out because of his role in the case as a "representative plaintiff."

Devine was a programmer at Adobe from 2006 to 2008, and he is now a freelance programmer. He read an article about one of the initial complaints against the companies and then was motivated to file one of his own. When the cases were consolidated into a single class action claim, he became one of the representative plaintiffs.

His goal to overturn the settlement and push for a trial is a longshot. Unless he's joined by many other class members, he's not likely to succeed. His role as a representative plaintiff does not necessarily give his objection extra weight, legal experts told NYT.

Devine has set up a website called Tech Worker Justice, where he writes that he is seeking alternative counsel. He encourages other class members to contact him "to help balance out conflicting interests in the case."

He's certainly not alone in his concerns about the lawsuit benefitting attorneys while short-changing class members. An engineer at one of the defendant companies in this case contacted Ars after the settlement was reported last month, and this engineer echoed the concern that the system seemed to be well-designed for lawyers, not class members.

The engineer, who is a class member and worked at a defendant company during the entire period covered by the suit, asked to remain anonymous because he's not authorized by his employer to speak to the press. He has applied for the payment and says he knows at least several of his co-workers have as well.

In an e-mail to Ars, the engineer wrote:

To be very honest—my employer pays me well. A good salary, bonuses, stock options, and RSU [Restricted Stock Units] add up to a nice number every year. On the face of it, the settlement is barely worth it financially. I'm not going to complain about an extra $5,000 (rumored size divided by class size). But the impact over several years of even a one percent reduction in my salary due to this is far more than $5,000. My salary defines the size of my bonuses and also impacts the number of stock options and RSU I receive. I've noticed that almost all class action lawsuits end with almost worthless payouts to the members of the class. The lawyers do well but when there are 100,000 or more members in the class it takes an unrealistically large settlement to result in a huge payment to the class members. Class action works as a way to stop companies from doing something but it doesn't seem to work to remedy the harm done to class members. I am glad it is settled. This was a terrible thing for the industry to do. Steve Jobs is getting most of the flack about this but the other CEOs are equally guilty. It also made the whole industry look bad, which doesn't help. We need to encourage people to want to work in high tech; not convince them they will be ripped off somehow by doing it.

The case was scheduled to go to trial at the end of May. A hearing on the proposed settlement is now scheduled for June.

Neither lawyer representing the employees nor the defendant companies have yet commented on Devine's objection.