Illinois v. Alternative Staffing Inc., et al.
Illinois brought a complaint against six temporary staffing agencies and a common client, Vee Pak, LLC, alleging that Vee Pak facilitated unlawful agreements among the temporary staffing agencies not to solicit or hire each other’s employees in violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act. The complaint alleges that the no-poach conspiracy among the defendants suppressed the…
In the Matter of the Idaho Attorney General’s Investigation of Kootenai Hospital District et al
Idaho resolved an investigation into two health care providers in Idaho County, Kootenai Health and Syringa, through a consent decree. Idaho found that in 2017, Kootenai Health and Syringa entered into a management agreement where Kootenai Health hired and paid Syringa’s Chief Executive Officer, making the CEO an employee of Kootenai Health. This agreement provided…
New York v. Intermountain Management Inc.
New York brought suit against a ski resort operator, Intermountain Management Inc., under the state’s antitrust law, the Donnelly Act. New York alleged that Intermountain acquired its only competitor in the season-pass skiing services market in the Syracuse area, Toggenburg, and that Intermountain closed Toggenburg after completing the purchase. New York also brought a claim…
Colorado v. Kroger
Colorado filed suit in Denver District Court to block the $24.6 billion proposed merger between Kroger and Albertsons, two of the largest supermarket chains in Colorado. Kroger operates 148 King Soopers and City Market stores and Albertsons operates 105 Safeway and Albertsons stores in the state. According to the complaint, the merger would eliminate head-to-head…
Illinois v. Elite Staffing, No. 2020CH05156 (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. Ill. July 29, 2020)
Plaintiff state sued staffing agencies Elite Staffing, Inc. (Elite), Metro Staff, Inc. (Metro) and Midway Staffing, Inc. (Midway), as well as their client Colony, Inc. (Colony). The complaint alleged that the three staffing agencies formed an unlawful agreement to refuse to solicit or hire the other’s employees and to fix the wages paid to their…
In re: Franchise No Poaching Provisions, King Cty. Super Ct., Wash. 2019
The Attorney General of Washington has entered into a series of agreements with 75 national chains who included so-called “no-poach” provisions in their franchise agreements. No-poach clauses appear in franchise agreements between owners of franchises and corporate headquarters. The clauses prohibit employees from moving among stores in the same corporate chain, a practice that economists…
