H&R Block Tax Preparers Allegedly Shortchanged by Non Poaching Agreement

H&R Block tax preparers and managers who worked at one of the company’s franchises between 2009 and May 2018 may have been affected by an alleged non poaching agreement, which may have prevented better work opportunities for them.

Some H&R Block tax preparers and managers have already filed legal action against the tax return program company, for allegedly keeping them from more gainful employment opportunities.

Former tax preparer and lead plaintiff Colleen G. recently filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and other H&R Block tax preparers. She claims these people were allegedly denied better employment benefits and opportunities due to the company’s non poaching agreement that was set up between their franchise locations.

This class action lawsuit applies to former and current H&R Block tax preparers, who were allegedly affected by the non poaching agreement.

The plaintiff, Colleen, who had worked for H&R Block during the class period, says she recently discovered that each of the company’s franchise locations and company owned location had a non poaching agreement that saved franchisees from having to compete for employees.

Even though each franchise answers to the same company, they are still in competition with each other for quality employees; however, non poaching agreements do not allow franchises to hire from one another — depressing wages for workers.

Overview of H&R Block Anti Poaching Clause

Colleen argues this alleged non poaching clause directly contradicts H&R Block’s company policy, which tells its franchisees that “you will not receive an exclusive Franchise Territory. … You may face competition from other franchisees or H&R Block tax businesses that we or our affiliates franchise or own and that operate at traditional sites outside your Franchise Territory.”

However, the company’s policy also allegedly states that “all employees hired by or working for Franchisee will be solely the employees of Franchisee and not employees of H&R Block or subject to H&R Block’s control. Specifically, Franchisee will have exclusive control over all employment-related decisions, including decisions concerning hiring, firing, wages, conditions of employment, discipline, staffing, or any other day-to-day management of employees.”

The class action lawsuit alleges that this policy means that while franchise locations were not supposed to implement any kind of non poaching agreement, they still had complete control over their employees’ wages and work advancements. Colleen says that according to the non poaching agreement between the H&R Block franchise locations “neither Franchisee nor any of Franchisee’s Associates will, without H&R Block’s prior written consent . . . . Solicit for employment any person who is employed by H&R Block or by any other franchisee of H&R Block.”

According to the class action lawsuit, the non poaching agreement is “restricting competition for employees in the market and artificially suppressing wages among competing firms in a highly specialized sector.”

According to economists, anti poaching clauses can be very damaging to employees because it prevents healthy competition between businesses, which otherwise might offer employees higher wages and better job opportunities.

H&R Block tax preparers are allegedly paid an average of $10.86 per hour, with the Bureau of Labor Statistics stating that the average hourly wage for tax preparers is $22.76.

Colleen states that she and other H&R Block tax preparers were denied this much higher wage due to the non poaching clause, and she is seeking compensation for herself and on behalf of fellow employees.

The H&R Block Class Action Lawsuit is Case No. 1:18-cv-07520, in the U.S. District Court of Northern Illinois.

Join a Free H&R Block Employee Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were an H&R Block employee at any time between 2009 and May 2018 and were prevented from obtaining employment at another H&R Block franchise, you may qualify to file an H&R Block class action lawsuit.

Learn More