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.
Agreements to avoid staff poaching are often written into fast food franchise contracts. The effect these no staff poaching agreements have is to control competition by not allowing an employee of one fast food restaurant—Domino’s, for example–to seek an increase in pay or a more palatable shift at another Domino’s location or other competing eatery.
Employees may not understand the implications of the franchise contract when it comes to no staff poaching. Another reason a worker may not be aware of a no staff poaching agreement is that it can be embedded in a Domino’s or other restaurant’s franchise agreement. In this case, the franchise owner must abide by the no staff poaching rule by not alluring or hiring employees from another site to their location.
The issue of no staff poaching agreements interfering in the pursuit of better wages and schedules by restaurant workers has recently come into focus through the efforts of Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson. According to Fortune, Ferguson says that these rules stand in violation of the state’s antitrust provisions as outlined in its consumer protection act.
The offices of attorney general from 10 other states in addition to Washington and the District of Columbia participated in an associated investigation of these restrictive rules. The investigation concluded that anti staff poaching rules keep employers from needing to provide incentive to keep their best employees and allow minimum wage workers to stagnate when they barely make enough to survive in the first place.
A July settlement coming out of this investigation indicated that McDonald’s, Arby’s, Carl’s Jr., Jimmy John’s, and Auntie Annie’s eateries would remove no staff poaching agreements from any future franchise contracts and stop enforcing existing ones. The terms of the settlement affect both Washington restaurant sites and their counterparts across the nation.
In late August, Ferguson announced that an additional eight restaurant chains have decided to come to the table and eliminate current enforcement and future contract references rather than face the legal consequences of a lawsuit. The current restaurant roster includes Applebee’s, Sonic, Panera Bread, Little Caesar’s, Five Guys, Jamba Juice, Church’s Chicken, and the International House of Pancakes (IHOP).
These eight restaurant chains include at lease 15,000 sites across the U.S., so the settlement is quite a victory for the average food service employee. Since it is estimated by Pennsylvania Attorney General Joseph Shapiro that 80 percent of restaurant chains have these clauses, there are still efforts to be made to ensure that workers in this arena get every opportunity to offer their experienced services to the highest bidder.
If you have worked for a fast food chain and believe that you have been prevented from moving locations because of a no staff poaching agreement, you could qualify to participate in a class action lawsuit investigation.
Join a Free Fast Food Employee Poaching Class Action Lawsuit Investigation
If you work for McDonald’s, Jimmy John’s, Pizza Hut, Little Caesars, Papa John’s, Domino’s, Burger King or Arby’s and were prevented from moving to a different franchise that is part of the same company, you may have been the victim of a no-poach agreement. If so, you may qualify to participate in this employee poaching class action lawsuit investigation.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING
Top Class Actions is a Proud Member of the American Bar Association
LEGAL INFORMATION IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE
Top Class Actions Legal Statement
©2008 – 2024 Top Class Actions® LLC
Various Trademarks held by their respective owners
This website is not intended for viewing or usage by European Union citizens.