Aerospace Class Action Claims Firms Engaged In Anticompetitive Conduct For Nearly A Decade With ‘No Poaching Agreement’

Aerospace No Poaching Class Action Lawsuit Overview: 

• Who: Workers have filed a pair of class action lawsuits against aerospace firms including, among others, Raytheon Technologies and Pratt & Whitney. 
• Why: Aerospace workers argue firms in the industry have been engaged in anticompetitive practices for nearly a decade by abiding by a “no poaching agreement.”
• Where: The class action lawsuits were filed in Connecticut federal court.

Aerospace workers have targeted Raytheon Technologies and other aerospace firms with a pair of putative antitrust class action lawsuits alleging they engaged in anticompetitive conduct. 

Workers claim the aerospace firms engaged in anticompetitive behavior for nearly a decade by abiding by a collective “no poaching agreement.” 

The agreement, workers allege, was created to “stamp out competition,” similarly to those used to fix the prices of products or to allocate customers. 

The class action lawsuits come amidst an ongoing probe by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and criminal investigation being conducted into P&W founder Mahesh Patel, who has been accused of engaging in a no poaching agreement for nearly a decade. 

Workers argue no poaching agreements are put in place to reduce the market competition for employees, enabling the firms to stabilize wages and have more leverage on salaries and benefits to offer. 

“The conspiracy disrupted the efficient allocation of labor that would have resulted if Defendants had competed for, rather than colluded against, their current and prospective employees,” one of the class action lawsuit states. 

Workers Claim No Poaching Agreements Hinder Workers’ Abilities To Get Employment Elsewhere

Workers further claim the no-poaching agreements also hinder workers’ abilities to get employment elsewhere. 

“Defendants’ agreement to fix, suppress, and stabilize wages, salaries and benefits also restricted their employees’ mobility to access better job opportunities,” one of the lawsuits states. 

Workers claim that, even though the DOJ is investigating the firms for their alleged anticompetitive practices, they themselves won’t be compensated in lieu of filing their own complaints. 

“Without this class action, Plaintiff and the Class will be unable to obtain compensation for the harm they suffered, and Defendants will retain the benefits of their unlawful conspiracy,” one of the lawsuits states. 

Workers claim the firms are in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. They are demanding a jury trial and requesting relief in the form of equitable relief for themselves and all class Members. 

Workers want to represent a class of any individual who was employed as an engineer or other skilled profession at Pratt & Whitney (P&W), QuEST Global Services, Belcan Engineering Group, Cyient, Parametric Solutions, Agilis Engineering or Raytheon during the time of the alleged anti competitive conduct starting in January 2011. 

Have you been blocked from getting fair access to employment opportunities due to a ‘no poaching agreement’? Let us know in the comments! 

The plaintiffs are collectively represented by David A. Slossberg and Jeffrey P. Nichols of Hurwitz Sagarin Slossberg & Knuff LLC; Gregory S. Asciolla, Robin A. van der Meulen, Matthew J. Perez and Veronica Bosco of Labaton Sucharow LLP; David S. Golub, Jonathan M. Levine, Steven L. Bloch and Ian W. Sloss of Silver Golub & Teitell LLP; and Candice Enders, Patrick F. Madden, Michaela L. Wallin and Daniel J. Walker of Berger Montague PC.

The Aerospace No Poaching Class Action Lawsuits are Granata, et al. v. Pratt & Whitney, et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01657, and Conroy, et al. v. Agilis Engineering, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:21-cv-01659, both in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. 

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

• Aerospace Companies Made Secret ‘No-Poaching’ Deal, Blocking Engineers From Negotiation, Career Growth, Class Action Alleges
• The Salvation Army ‘Forced Labor,’ Abused ARC Participants, Alleges Class Action
• Amazon Warehouse Workers’ Minimum Wage Class Action Removed to Federal Court
• Judge Dismisses Child Labor Class Action Against Apple, Google Alphabet, Microsoft, Dell and Tesla