No-Poach Agreements

Skyline Anticompetitive Employment Agreements California Class Action

This class action brings suit against Skyline Capital Builders, LLC and Skyline Construction Enterprises, Inc., primarily for anticompetitive actions and unfair competition. According to the complaint, Skyline is an investor in commercial real estate and construction services firms and was “search[ing] for a foothold in the local San Diego construction market.” The complaint alleges, among  Read more

Aerospace Companies’ No-Poach Agreements Suppressed Pay Antitrust Class Action

This is one of a number of recent antitrust class actions against Raytheon Corporation, its Pratt & Whitney division (P&W), and their outsourcing suppliers, alleging the companies conspired not to hire each other’s skilled aerospace employees. The complaint alleges that such no-poach agreements repress competition, hold down wages, and are illegal under antitrust laws. The  Read more

Pratt & Whitney and Outsourcers No-Poach Agreements Antitrust Class Action

This antitrust class action alleges that a major aerospace company and a number of its outsourcing companies “conspired to restrain competition and reduce compensation for engineers and other skilled workers.” The companies did this, the complaint claims, through no-poach agreements, in which they agreed not to hire each other’s skilled employees.  Read more

Pratt & Whitney and Suppliers No-Poach Agreements Antitrust Class Action

The complaint for this class action puts its allegations in one compact sentence: “Beginning in 2011 and continuing until at least 2019, six outsourcing firms and a powerful defense contractor entered into an illegal agreement (the ‘No Poach Agreement’) not to hire one another’s aerospace engineers and other skilled workers…” The defense contractor is Raytheon  Read more

Aerospace, Outsourcing Companies No-Poach Agreements Class Action

In the past, certain fast-food franchising companies have been charged with anticompetitive behavior when they have formed agreements not to hire each other’s employees. In this class action, the no-poach accusations are aimed at aerospace and outsource engineering supply companies. The complaint for this class action alleges these companies suppressed competition and therefore held down  Read more

Duke University and UNC No-Poach Faculty Settlement

Duke University is paying $19 million to settle a faculty class action alleging that Duke and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill agreed not to hire, recruit, or poach each other’s faculty members, thus violating state and federal antitrust laws.  Read more

Geisinger, Evangelical Community No-Poach Agreement Class Action

This class action takes issue with a no-poach agreement allegedly made between Geisinger Health and Evangelical Community Hospital in central Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the no-poach agreement reduced competition for healthcare workers in the area and suppressed mobility and wages in that market.  Read more

Broiler Chicken Integrators Grow-Out Services Antitrust Class Action

This antitrust and unfair competition class action brings suit against eleven “vertically-integrated” broiler chicken grower companies under the Tyson, Pilgrim’s Pride, Perdue, Koch, and Sanderson Farms names. The complaint describes these companies as a cartel that has, since at least 2008, conspiring so as “not to compete for Broiler Grow-Out Services, with the purpose and  Read more

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