Aerospace Engineering Services Subject Of No-Poach Antitrust Action
Pratt & Whitney; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc.; Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc., Et Al Subject Of “No-Poach” Antitrust Suit Alleging Claims Under The Sherman Act
On December 14, 2021, a class action lawsuit was filed in United States District Court, District of Connecticut, against Pratt & Whitney, a Division of Raytheon Technologies Corporation; QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc.; Belcan Engineering Group, LLC; Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership; Cyient Inc.; Parametric Solutions, Inc.; Agilis Engineering, Inc.; Mahesh Patel; Robert Harvey; Harpreet Wasan; Thomas Edwards; Gary Prus; Frank O’Neill; and others, as of yet unknown, for claims under the Sherman Act to recover damages and other relief for the substantial injuries Plaintiff and others similarly situated have sustained arising from the Defendants’ anticompetitive conduct.
The class action, according to the complaint, stems from alleged unlawful agreements among the aerospace engineering firm Defendants to restrain competition in the labor markets in which they compete for employees who, principally, are engineers and other skilled employees in the aerospace industry. The Defendants are major competitors for engineering services, and they compete with each other to attract, hire, and retain skilled employees, including engineers and other skilled employees.
Beginning, however, at least as early as 2011 and continuing through at least 2019, senior executives and managers at Defendants, allegedly, entered into a conspiracy not to solicit, recruit, hire without prior approval, or otherwise compete for employees, including engineers and other skilled employees (the “no-poach agreement”).
The antitrust class action complaint alleges that the Defendants agreed to restrict competition for their employees’ services with the purpose and effect of fixing, suppressing, and stabilizing wages, salaries, and benefits and restraining competition in the market for their employees’ services. Further, the Defendants’ agreement to fix, suppress, and stabilize wages, salaries and benefits also, according to the complaint, restricted their employees’ mobility to access better job opportunities.
To view a copy of the antitrust class action complaint, please click Aerospace Engineering Complaint.