No-Poach Agreements

Luxury Brands No-Poach Agreements at Saks Stores Antitrust Class Action

Saks is known for its department stores throughout the country. In these stores, certain luxury retailers operate “stores-within-stores” (also known as concessions) in which they sell their goods. The complaint alleges that these luxury retailers have violated antitrust laws by agreeing not to hire each other’s employees.  Read more

HP Age Discrimination Workforce Reduction Plan and Antitrust Class Action

This class action sues HP Enterprise Services, LLC and HP, Inc., for a Workforce Reduction Plan that the complaint says discriminates by age. It points out that, as of October 2015, over 85% of California-based workers terminated under the plan are 40 years of age or older.  Read more

McDonald’s No Poaching of Employees Antitrust Class Action

This class action is another antitrust lawsuit brought because of a fast food company’s “no-poach” policy of refusing to let franchisees compete for each other’s workers. The defendants this time are McDonald’s USA, LLC and McDonald’s Corporation.  Read more

H&R Block No Poaching of Employees Agreements Antitrust Class Action

Agreements in which employers or franchises agree not to hire each other’s workers are known as no-poach agreements. They are common, but they are also not legal, because they violate antitrust laws by restraining competition for workers. Lately, fast-food franchises have been targeted by class actions for their no-poach agreements. This class action bring suit  Read more

Critical Intervention, KKP Antitrust Security Guard Class Action

Can two companies, a law firm, and a few individuals restrain trade in the security guard industry in a state? The complaint for this class action alleges that Critical Intervention Services, Inc. (CIS), the KPP Security Group (KPP), the Solomon Law Group, PA, and four people did exactly that. It alleges that the companies “entered  Read more

H&R Block No-Poach Agreements Antitrust Class Action

H&R Block has over 10,000 of its own offices, in the US and elsewhere, plus 3,300 franchises across the US. The complaint for this class action alleges that the company does not permit its various corporate-owned offices and franchises to compete with each other for employees. Such no-poach agreements violate antitrust laws.   Read more

Arby’s No-Poach Franchise Agreements in Colorado Class Action

This is another among many antitrust class actions being brought against fast food companies for the no-poach clauses in their franchise agreements. As in other cases, the complaint alleges that the clauses are anticompetitive and keep wages low.  Read more

Papa John’s No-Poach Franchise Agreements Antitrust Class Action

Papa John’s is the fourth-largest pizza company in the world, the complaint for this class action says. As such, the complaint alleges, its no-poach agreements are likely to have an anticompetitive effect on the labor market.  Read more

Jiffy Lube Anticompetitive No-Poach Franchise Provisions Class Action

Jiffy Lube has more than 2,000 shops across the US, and the complaint for this class action claims that it has no-poach provisions in its standard franchise agreements. The complaint alleges that wages at Jiffy Lube shops are low and that the no-poach provisions are part of the reason.   Read more

Burger King “No-Poach” Agreements Antitrust Class Action

The complaint for this class action alleges that Burger King franchises are required to agree to no-poach agreements and that these agreements are anticompetitive and illegal and keep worker wages down.  Read more