Laura Pennington  |  July 27, 2022

Category: Labor & Employment

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

pouring new oil into car during Jiffy Lube oil change

(Photo Credit: Africa Studio/Shutterstock)


UPDATE:

  • Jiffy Lube has agreed to a $2 million settlement to end claims brought by a former employee who alleged the company illegally used a no-poaching agreement with franchise owners, harming workers.
  • In a motion filed July 22 in a Pennsylvania federal court, Plaintiff Victor Fuentes asked a judge to approve the deal that would benefit about 1,250 hourly current and former Jiffy Lube workers in the New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania regions in and around Philadelphia.
  • Fuentes said the $2 million settlement represents about 90% of the damages suffered by current and former workers.
  • In the original lawsuit, Fuentes alleged workers were harmed by company contract provisions that prevented Jiffy Lube franchises from hiring anyone who had been employed by another Jiffy Lube franchisee within the previous six months.

(Dec. 6, 2018)

A new Jiffy Lube class action lawsuit brought by a former employee says use of a no-poaching agreement with franchise owners harms workers.

The Jiffy Lube class action lawsuit, which also targets Shell, is the latest legal action involving allegations that such agreements illegally suppress wages.

No-poaching agreements prohibit franchise owners from hiring employees who worked at other Jiffy Lube locations, limiting employee mobility.

The Jiffy Lube class action lawsuit alleges that various franchise owners agreed to a clause in their contracts disallowing them from hiring anyone who had worked at another location in the past six months.

According to lead plaintiff Victor Fuentes, these actions kept wages low for employees and blocked workers from being able to seek out better employment terms. Employees like him had to wait six months after leaving one location before attempting employment at another.

As alleged in the Jiffy Lube class action lawsuit, Jiffy Lube used the no-poaching clause from an unknown date through at least March 2016. The plaintiff argues on behalf of himself and others that this is a violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Fuentes says he experienced problems because of the no-poaching clause when he moved between states and had to let the six month period expire before he could find gainful employment at a new Jiffy Lube location.

The plaintiff argues that the specific training and equipment about which Jiffy Lube employees become familiar makes it hard for them to transition this knowledge to related businesses and that the use of no-poaching clauses limit their movement between franchise locations.

The Jiffy Lube class action lawsuit claims that this blocks qualified employees from exercising mobility or seeking out better wages within the same company.

Fuentes says the no-poaching clause harms employees’ bargaining power, especially so since the training they receive on the job is so specific to that chain.

According to the Jiffy Lube class action lawsuit, employment applications for Jiffy Lube openly ask whether the employee has worked for another location before, and Jiffy Lube franchise owners have an often-updated list of each chain location across the U.S.

The Jiffy Lube class action lawsuit seeks to represent a Class of impacted employees against the chain and its parent company for employees who worked there since 2010.

According to the plaintiff, Jiffy Lube also had the right to terminate a franchise owner’s agreements if that owner was found to have violated the no-poaching clause.

Allegedly, the no-poaching clause was hidden from employees working at Jiffy Lube and had only been made available to franchise owners, an argument the plaintiff says should allow the statute of limitations on the case to be tolled.

The plaintiff and proposed Class are represented by John A. Yanchunis, Marcio W. Valladares and Kevin Clancy Boylan of Morgan & Morgan PA, Michael L. Schrag, Eric H. Gibbs, and Joshua J. Bloomfield of Gibbs Law Group LLP, and George W. Sampson of Sampson Dunlap LLP.

The Jiffy Lube No-Poaching Employment Clause Class Action Lawsuit is Victor Fuentes v. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05174, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

UPDATE: On Nov. 25, 2019, a federal judge denied Jiffy Lube’s attempt to dismiss an anti-poaching class action lawsuit, while trimming some of the claims brought forward by a former employee. 

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.

7 thoughts onJiffy Lube inks $2M settlement with workers over no-poach rule

  1. Linda Fitzgerald says:

    Please add me

  2. BARBARA L ROGERS says:

    please add me

  3. Audrey Stevenson says:

    Add me

  4. Gary Stevenson says:

    Add me

  5. John Dunn says:

    Went through the same situation here in the Austin Texas area under Jerry Bonnet and District Manager Caleb Westbrook. And was even threatened legal action if I didn’t shut up and go away.

    1. Gary Stevenson says:

      Add me

  6. Joseph Matte says:

    Spent almost 5 years in the company and after suppressed salary wages creates too big of a gap between hours worked and hours paid, I had to leave. However because of the Claus I couldn’t stay within my expertise and being a general manager I had aquired a lot of knowledge in the field. I’m now in construction at a base rate because I couldn’t take my years of knowledge and experience to someone else in the same field immediately.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.