Judge Says McDonald’s Worker Has Standing To Challenge No-Poach Deals

US District Judge Jorge Alonso on Friday, April 23, named plaintiff Stephanie Turner, represented by McCune Wright Arevalo, had adequately alleged that the agreements between franchisees and corporate-owned McDonald’s restaurants depressed her wages in violation of the federal Sherman Act.

We’d love to be your preferred source for news.

Please add us to your preferred sources list so our news, data and interviews show up in your feed. Thanks!

Add as Preferred Source

The case argues that as part of McDonald’s system to maintain its significant competitive advantage, together with its franchisees, McDonald’s has colluded to suppress the wages of the restaurant-based employees who work not only at McDonald’s restaurants in Ohio or Kentucky, but also throughout the United States. In particular, McDonald’s and its franchisees have contracted, combined, and/or conspired to neither hire nor solicit each other’s employees.

According to Peter Cappelli, Wharton management professor and director of Wharton’s Center for Human Resources, no-poaching agreements are unfair to employees and such a pact “benefits the companies at the expense of their employees.” Mr. Cappelli noted that the reason such agreements are illegal and violate both antitrust and employment laws is because “[c]ompanies could achieve the same results by making it attractive enough for employees not to leave.”

Full Content: Reuters

Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.