A federal court ruling on April 28 offered some reassurance to HR professionals and employers that use no-poach agreements.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut dismissed an antitrust case, U.S. v. Patel, which involved a jet-engine manufacturer that had a no-poach agreement with several outsourcing firms that competed for the manufacturer's projects.
"While we remain concerned about the risk of applying antitrust laws too broadly, this decision is an encouraging signal," said Emily M. Dickens, SHRM chief of staff and head of public affairs. "HR professionals depend on a high degree of certainty and predictability to carry out their responsibilities. The court's decision to dismiss the charges in U.S. v. Patel provides some relief and clarity on the application of antitrust laws to everyday business practices."
SHRM previously filed a friend-of-the-court brief because it was concerned about the government criminalizing actions by HR professionals and business executives that traditionally have been viewed as normal business practices.
"There are a myriad of legitimate business considerations that are necessary to having certain procedures related to hiring in place, such as workforce continuity, minimizing disruption, encouraging collaboration among business partners, investment in employees and increased hiring in the market to fulfill the client's demands," SHRM stated.
Background
In general, it's illegal for a group of businesses to agree to suppress...
The US has announced visa restrictions on some South Africans as Donald Trump’s administration continues to claim that South Africa’s government racially discriminates against white minority Afrik...