October 19, 2019

October 18, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 17, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

DOJ Announces First Settlement Under Trump Administration Regarding “No-Poach” Agreement

On April 3, 2018, the Antitrust Division of the U.S Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had reached a settlement in a matter involving a “no-poaching” agreement between employers—the first such enforcement action under the Trump Administration.  The DOJ’s pursuit of the matter reflects the Department’s continuing scrutiny of employment and hiring agreements between corporations.

Background on Antitrust Enforcement of Employment and Hiring Agreements Between Companies

Near the end of the Obama Administration, the DOJ Antitrust Division began to take particular interest in examining the employment and hiring practices of large corporations, including no-poaching agreements—that is, agreements between companies not to recruit or hire each other’s employees. As a result of this heightened scrutiny, the DOJ at the time brought a series of civil lawsuits against several large Silicon Valley corporations, alleging that the companies had entered into illicit no-poaching agreements with their competitors. The collective payouts from these civil lawsuits totaled nearly $1 billion.

Subsequently, in October 2016, the DOJ Antitrust Division, along with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), jointly issued comprehensive Guidance for Human Resource Professionals (“HR Guidance”) regarding the application of the federal antitrust laws to hiring practices and compensation decisions. In the Guidance, the agencies identified the following types of agreements between corporations as per se unlawful:

  • naked wage-fixing” agreements: agreements “about employee salary or other terms of compensation, either at specific level or within a range”; and

  • no-poaching” agreements: agreements “to refuse to solicit or hire that other company’s employees.”

The HR Guidance explained that such agreements could be written or unwritten, formal or informal, express or implicit, and they could include one-way communications (i.e. mere invitations to collude).  Notably, the HR Guidance indicated the DOJ’s intention to begin pursuing such improper agreements through criminal prosecutions, in addition to civil enforcement.

DOJ Settlement

In its civil complaint in the current matter—US v. Knorr-Bremse AG and Westinghouse Air Brakes Technologies—the Antitrust Division alleged that the companies “entered into pervasive no-poach agreements that spanned multiple business units and jurisdictions” between the period of 2009 and 2016.  The complaint further alleged that both companies also entered into separate no-poaching agreements with a third competitor that was subsequently acquired by one of the companies.

Under the terms of the settlement, the companies are “prohibited from entering, maintaining, or enforcing no-poach agreements with any other companies, subject to limited exceptions.” The settlement also requires the companies to “implement rigorous notification and compliance measures to preclude their entry into these types of anticompetitive agreements in the future.”

In announcing the settlement agreement, the DOJ noted that, in the present matter, it exercised its prosecutorial discretion to treat the no-poaching agreements as civil, rather than criminal, violations because the companies in question had both formed and terminated the agreements before the DOJ and FTC issued the HR Guidance. The DOJ, however, emphasized its continued intention going forward to pursue “naked” no-poaching agreements via criminal prosecution.


Employers and HR professionals should be aware that both civil enforcement action and criminal prosecutions of wage-fixing and no-poaching agreements are now a high priority for the antitrust enforcement agencies. The DOJ’s Antitrust Division has stated that, as of January of this year, it already has a handful of criminal cases in the works.

It is important to recognize that – for decades – there was virtually no enforcement, no guidance, and no cases addressing this issue. Many companies may have reasonably believed that their formal or informal discussions with their commercial partners was a matter of profession courtesy and was perfectly lawful, only to find out now – after the publication of the DOJ and FTC guidelines – that their conduct may have crossed the line, or may even constitute a criminal offense.

In most cases, these agreements are also not top of mind for in-house counsel or HR professionals, but only get discovered during the course of some other investigation or transaction. For example, it is notable that, in the above-discussed case, the no-poaching agreement that prompted the investigation (and led to the discovery of the numerous other violative agreements) was uncovered during an examination by the DOJ into one of companies’ merger with a third-party competitor.  Consequently, companies contemplating mergers subject to antitrust review are well-advised to address potential antitrust issues—including preexisting wage-fixing or no-poaching agreements—as part of the due diligence process.

© 2019 Proskauer Rose LLP.


About this Author

Lloyd B Chinn, Financial, Whistleblower Attorney, Proskauer Law Firm

Lloyd B. Chinn is a Partner in the Labor & Employment Law Department and co-head of the Whistleblowing & Retaliation Group. He litigates employment disputes of all types before federal and state courts, arbitration tribunals (e.g., FINRA, JAMS and AAA), and before administrative agencies in New York and across the country. Lloyd's practice ranges from litigating compensation disputes to defending whistleblower, discrimination and sexual harassment claims. Although he represents employers in a wide range of industries, including law, insurance, health care, consulting, media,...

Colin Kass, Antitrust LItigation Attorney, Proskauer Rose Law Firm

Colin Kass is a partner in the Litigation Department and vice-chair of the Antitrust Group. An experienced antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer, Colin has litigated cases before federal and state courts throughout the United States and before administrative agencies. His practice involves a wide range of industries and spans the full-range of antitrust and unfair competition-related litigation, including class actions, competitor suits, dealer/distributor termination suits, price discrimination cases, criminal price-fixing investigations, and merger injunctions.

Laura M. Fant, Labor & Employment Attorney, Proskauer Law Firm

Laura M. Fant is an Associate in the Labor & Employment Department, resident in the New York office. She is a member of the Accessibility and Accommodations Practice Group, and frequently counsels on matters involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and state public accommodation law, as well as disability accommodation in the workplace. She has experience conducting accessibility audits and providing ADA and accessibility training for clients in a variety of sectors, including retail, sports, and not-for-profit. Her practice also focuses on wage and hour...

Myra Din, Proskauer Law Firm, New York, Labor and Employment Law Attorney

Myra Din is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department. She assists employers in a wide range of areas, including discrimination, wage and hour and labor-management relations. 

Prior to joining Proskauer, Myra was a judicial law clerk to the Hon. Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. in the Eastern District of New York and an intern to the Hon. Paul A. Crotty in the Southern District of New York. 

Myra graduated from Brooklyn Law School in 2016, where she served as the Executive Notes and Comments Editor of the ...