The University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) is under scrutiny as the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has backed a lawsuit alleging that the institution exerts illegal control over its workforce. This legal challenge claims that UPMC has used a series of acquisitions and restrictive employment contracts to monopolize the labor market in the healthcare sector.
In a recent filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, the DOJ urged the court to dismiss UPMC’s attempts to counter the workers’ claims. According to Bloomberg, the department emphasized that accepting UPMC’s arguments could grant “monopsonist employers a blank check to wield unlawfully acquired market power.” This, the DOJ warns, could lead to reduced wages and deteriorating working conditions for healthcare workers, impacting tens of thousands of employees and hundreds of thousands of patients.
The lawsuit accuses UPMC of imposing restrictive noncompete agreements on its physicians and leveraging mergers and acquisitions to strengthen its market dominance over employees. It further claims that nurses have been required to take on additional patient loads without corresponding pay increases. The DOJ criticized UPMC for what it describes as a misinterpretation of relevant legal standards pertaining to the case.
As the largest private employer in Pennsylvania, UPMC employs approximately 95,000 individuals and generates around $26 billion in annual revenue. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are seeking class action status on behalf of thousands of current and former healthcare workers associated with the center. Despite the serious allegations, UPMC has denied any wrongdoing and has not yet provided a comment regarding the DOJ’s involvement or the ongoing lawsuit.
The DOJ’s intervention highlights the Biden administration’s broader strategy to leverage antitrust regulations against practices that it perceives as harmful to workers. As this case progresses, it underscores ongoing concerns about the balance of power between large healthcare providers and their employees.
Source: Bloomberg
Featured News
CVS Health Explores Potential Breakup Amid Investor Pressure: Report
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Acquires Dish TV, Creating 20 Million-Subscriber Powerhouse
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea Fines Kakao Mobility $54.8 Million for Anti-Competitive Practices
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Google Offers Settlement in India’s Antitrust Case Regarding Smart TVs
Oct 3, 2024 by
CPI
Attorney Challenges NCAA’s $2.78 Billion Settlement in Landmark Antitrust Cases
Oct 3, 2024 by
nhoch@pymnts.com
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Refusal to Deal
Sep 27, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust’s Refusal-to-Deal Doctrine: The Emperor Has No Clothes
Sep 27, 2024 by
Erik Hovenkamp
Why All Antitrust Claims are Refusal to Deal Claims and What that Means for Policy
Sep 27, 2024 by
Ramsi Woodcock
The Aspen Misadventure
Sep 27, 2024 by
Roger Blair & Holly P. Stidham
Refusal to Deal in Antitrust Law: Evolving Jurisprudence and Business Justifications in the Align Technology Case
Sep 27, 2024 by
Timothy Hsieh