To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
A federal grand jury in Texas indicted the owner of a therapist staffing company on wage-fixing charges on December 9. Although this is the US Department of Justice’s first criminal wage-fixing prosecution, the indictment underscores that enforcement agencies remain focused on policing these types of anticompetitive agreements that restrict competition in labor markets.
For the past few years, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have focused on bringing enforcement actions relating to the anticompetitive effects on employee mobility and labor markets. In 2016, the two federal antitrust enforcement agencies jointly issued Antitrust Guidance for Human Resource Professionals (Guidance), in which they announced an intention to take a “very active” approach to reviewing wage-fixing and no-poach agreements.[1] The Guidance further cautioned that if the DOJ “uncovers a naked wage-fix
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
On December 10, 2020, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictment of Neeraj Jindal, a former owner of a therapist staffing company, for a criminal conspiracy to fix wages paid to physical therapists and assistants in north Texas.
The two-count indictment alleges 1) a conspiracy to suppress wage competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and 2) obstruction of the Federal Trade Commission’s earlier investigation of the same conduct. This indictment is part of the DOJ’s years-long initiative to prosecute anticompetitive conduct in labor markets and is the first criminal wage-fixing prosecution brought by the DOJ.
announced its first criminal
indictment targeting an alleged conspiracy to reduce employee wages. The DOJ charged the former owner of a therapist staffing company with conspiring to reduce pay rates for healthcare worker contractors, but did not charge the company itself. Specifically, the indictment alleges that, for a six-month period in 2017, the defendant and his co-conspirators exchanged non-public information on rates paid to healthcare workers; discussed and agreed to decrease rates paid to healthcare workers; implemented rate decreases in accordance with their agreement; and paid healthcare workers at collusive and noncompetitive rates. The indictment alleges that the defendant’s behavior constitutes a