Search form

New DOJ, FTC Antitrust Compliance Guidance for Human Resources Attacks No-Poaching Agreements

By Clifford R. Atlas, Conrad S. Kee and Erik J. Winton
  • November 9, 2016

Criticizing non-solicitation of employees — or “no-poaching” — agreements as an alleged factor in holding back wage growth, the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have issued antitrust guidance on human resources issues. This is consistent with and continues the White House’s recent attacks on post-employment restrictive covenant agreements. (See our article, White House Continues Attack on Non-Compete Agreements.)

The “Antitrust Guidance for Human Resources Professionals,” released on October 20, 2016, focuses on two main areas. First, it reminds employers that they cannot engage in wage fixing with other employers. Second, the agencies highlight the importance of the latest focus on “no-poaching” agreements involving California technology companies. The guidance asserts that “naked” no-poaching agreements in employment are comparable to fixing product prices or allocating customers, which traditionally have been violations of antitrust law subject to criminal or civil action. Significantly, the Department of Justice states that it intends to apply these same antitrust concepts in the employment context and will criminally prosecute “naked” wage fixing or no-poaching agreements.

Wage Fixing Agreements

The DOJ and FTC largely reiterate historical concerns over wage fixing. For example, several years ago, the agencies had obtained consent orders from employers in the healthcare and fashion industries. The agencies had alleged the employers sought to collude with each other by effectively establishing standard rates for particular positions within the industry. Such concerns also have been pursued in private litigation. For example, a recent class action settlement in Michigan arose from allegations that several hospitals had sought to establish wage ranges for registered nurses.

Still, the guidance does not appear to recognize, as a practical matter, that employers often seek to offer wages and benefits that are competitive with their peers. Some would argue that employers often seek to enhance their own compensation and benefits structures to ensure they are not at a competitive disadvantage in hiring the best employees. In such cases, sharing information about competitive wages actually may benefit employees.

An information exchange, such as a survey on compensation and benefits, can be lawful, according to the guidance. For example, the guidance noted that wage information may be exchanged where a neutral third party manages the exchange, the information is relatively old, or the information is presented to employers on an aggregated basis and cannot be linked to a particular employer.

No-Poaching Agreements

According to the guidance, “naked” no-poaching agreements restrict employee mobility and effectively reduce compensation. The concerns apparently stem from litigation against technology firms, where the DOJ and private litigants alleged the companies had entered into agreements not to cold call or, in some cases, not to hire each other’s employees. Resolution of the DOJ actions involved consent orders entered by the applicable courts and high-dollar monetary payments.

While the guidance makes broad statements based on “naked” no-poaching agreements within the technology and healthcare sectors, it does not provide advice on the more familiar non-solicitation-of-employees agreements between competitors. For example:

  • A consulting or staffing firm may send employees to work with a client and have the client agree that it will not hire such employees directly (“disintermediation”).
  • In a potential merger, the acquiring company will have the opportunity to meet key employees of the selling company and the due diligence documents may restrict the acquiring company from hiring those employees for a period of time in the event the contemplated transaction fails.
  • In litigation in which an employer alleges that a former executive breached contractual and possibly other obligations (e.g., trade secret), to avoid future disputes over contractual breaches or misuse of confidential information, resolution might involve an agreement that the executive’s new employer will not hire employees who reported to the executive at the previous employer.

The guidance does not shed light on any of these common situations. However, many of these situations arguably are not “naked” no-poaching agreements, as they have a legitimate purpose besides limiting competition for labor, and assuming they were narrowly tailored to appropriate circumstances.

Takeaways

The extent to which the Donald Trump Administration will expend resources to pursue the DOJ/FTC guidance remains to be seen. Nevertheless, the guidance highlights the continued importance of training managers. While it is addressed to human resources professionals, company managers also are frequently in positions in which they discuss compensation with other employers or negotiate agreements that might involve hiring restrictions. Broadened training for managers on how to handle these situations should be a priority. Further, human resources professionals should be cautious when discussing compensation and benefits in professional settings involving their peers from other organizations.

Finally, the toughest issue arising from the guidance may be determining under what circumstances employers may agree not to hire or solicit employees from other employers. The guidance does not provide any instruction on what restrictions or circumstances may be appropriate in the eyes of the Department of Justice. Organizations entering into such agreements should consult counsel and ensure that their agreements are narrowly tailored to address legitimate business concerns.

Jackson Lewis is available to answer inquiries regarding this new guidance.

©2016 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

October 1, 2019

Retail Industry Workplace Law Update – Fall 2019

October 1, 2019

DOL Issues New Overtime Rule, Sets Minimum Annual Salary at $35,568 The U.S. Department of Labor has issued a new Final Rule updating the minimum salary requirements for the “white collar” overtime exemptions. Read full article … California Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Unpaid Wages under PAGA Putting an end to employees’... Read More

September 24, 2019

Get Ready for Maryland’s New Employment Laws Going into Effect October 1

September 24, 2019

New Maryland laws governing the workplace will take effect on October 1, 2019. These laws: Amend the state’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) with respect to harassment claims and with respect to the definition of “employee”; Require unpaid leave and provide additional protections for employees serving as organ or bone marrow... Read More

August 2, 2019

New Jersey Court Brings ‘Clarity and Uniformity’ to Analysis of Restrictive Covenants

August 2, 2019

The New Jersey Appellate Division has clarified the analysis required to determine the effect of restrictive covenant agreements (RCAs) and offered guidance to practitioners drafting RCAs under New Jersey law in a decision on six consolidated actions. ADP, LLC v. Kusins, No. A-4664-16T1 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. July 26, 2019).... Read More