Tuesday, January 26, 2021
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Articles
    • See All Articles
    • NEW: COVID-Related
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Leadership and Career
  • Vendor News
  • Jobs
  • Events
    • Webinars & Events
    • Submit an Event
  • Downloads
    • eBooks
    • Whitepapers
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

DOJ Launches 2 Criminal Prosecutions of Illegal No-Poach and Wage-Fixing Agreements

Recent Cases from the Antitrust Division

by Michael Volkov
January 14, 2021
in Compliance, Featured
wrench with 100 dollar bills

We’ve heard the warnings about criminal indictments against companies engaging in no-poach or wage-fixing agreements. Now the DOJ’s Antitrust Division puts its money where its mouth is.  Michael Volkov provides details on the criminal cases against Surgical Care Affiliates and Neeraj Jindal.

The DOJ’s Antitrust Division has warned that it would bring criminal indictments against companies that enter into illegal no-poach or wage-fixing agreements. The Antitrust Division has now put its money where its mouth is, announcing two significant criminal cases at the end of 2020 and at the beginning of 2021, respectively.

The SCA No Poach Case

On January 5, 2021, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging a criminal violation against Surgical Care Affiliates (SCA) and SCAI Holdings, the successor company to SCA. This is the first criminal prosecution of a no-poach agreement.

SCA operates 230 outpatient surgical facilities in the country that treat more than 1 million patients each year. UnitedHealth acquired SCA in 2017. SCA allegedly entered into two illegal conspiracies with other health care companies in the hiring of senior executives.

Beginning in 2010 and continuing to 2017, SCA conspired with a company based in Texas to allocate senior-level employees by agreeing not to solicit each other’s senior-level employees.

In a second agreement, starting in February 2012 and continuing to July 2017, SCA conspired with a company based in Colorado to allocate senior-level employees through a similar non-solicitation agreement.

The indictment outlines specific acts relating to the illegal conspiracies. On May 14, 2010, Company A representative wrote an email message reporting on a conversation with SCA’s CEO, “I had a conversation w [SCA CEO] re people and we reached agreement that we would not approach each other’s proactively.”

On November 1, 2013, a Company A employee discussed whether to interview a candidate employed by SCA in light of the “verbal agreement with SCA to not poach their folks.”

Finally, on July 17, 2017, Company A recruiting and human resource employees believed that a candidate was employed by SCA, and a Company employee noted that “although the candidate ‘look[ed] great’ she ‘can’t poach her.’”

The Jindal Wage-Fixing Case

In an earlier criminal case, late in 2020, the Antitrust Division returned an indictment in United States v. Neeraj Jindal, which charged Jindal, an owner of a therapist staffing company in Dallas-Ft. Worth, of conspiracy to fix prices paid to physical therapists and physical therapist assistants. Jindal was also charged with obstruction of the FTC’s civil investigation. According to the indictment, Jindal made false statements to FTC investigators during an interview. Jindal and a co-conspirator agreed to pay lower rates to certain physical therapists and physical therapist assistants in the Dallas-Ft. Worth market. The conspiracy lasted for a short period of time, from March to August 2017.

Antitrust Division History on No-Poach Agreements

Several years ago, the Antitrust Division entered into settlement agreements with several high-tech companies, including Adobe, Apple, Google, Pixar and Intuit, to bar them from agreeing to non-solicitation agreements for employees that prevented the companies from soliciting each other’s employees for hiring opportunities. These illegal agreements were carried out by senior high-tech executives.

In 2016, the Antitrust Division and FTC issued guidance as to the application of antitrust laws to no-poaching and wage-fixing agreements between employers. The guidance stated, “Going forward, the Justice Department intends to criminally investigate naked no-poaching or wage-fixing agreements that are unrelated or unnecessary to a larger legitimate collaboration between the employers.”

In 2018, the DOJ reached a civil settlement with Knorr-Bremse, Westinghouse and Faiveley for engaging in an illegal naked no-poach employment agreement. The alleged conspiracy preceded the 2016 guidance and no criminal charges were lodged. The Antitrust Division continued to warn against criminal prosecution of naked no-poach and wage-fixing agreements among employers. Interestingly, the Antitrust Division often referred to the fact that it was investigating a number of conspiracies and expected to bring criminal prosecutions.

Despite these aggressive statements, no criminal cases materialized – until now.

These recent criminal cases put every company on notice about potential criminal antitrust risks for naked no-poach or wage-fixing agreements among competitors.

In response to this new and significant risk, companies have to focus on HR hiring practices and potential illegal communications among companies involved in hiring and recruiting employees.

While there is nothing wrong in hiring employees who previously worked at a competitor, companies have to develop controls to ensure that such hiring was not the result of an illegal agreement among two or more competitors for employees. The level of risk increases in employee hiring markets in high-tech and other industries where employee specialization is significant.


This article was republished with permission from Michael Volkov’s blog, Corruption, Crime & Compliance.


Tags: anti-trustDOJwage compliance
Previous Post

Prioritizing Compliance Along Health Care’s Digital Transformation Journey

Next Post

Ransomware: It’s Time to Stop Negotiating

Michael Volkov

Michael-Volkov-leclairryan Michael Volkov is the CEO of The Volkov Law Group LLC, where he provides compliance, internal investigation and white collar defense services.  He can be reached at mvolkov@volkovlaw.com. Michael has extensive experience representing clients on matters involving the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the UK Bribery Act, money laundering, Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC), export controls, sanctions and International Traffic in Arms, False Claims Act, Congressional investigations, online gambling and regulatory enforcement issues. Michael served for more than 17 years as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Columbia; for five years as the Chief Crime and Terrorism Counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Chief Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security Counsel for the Senate and House Judiciary Committees; and as a Trial Attorney in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. Michael also maintains a well-known blog: Corruption Crime & Compliance, which is frequently cited by anti-corruption professionals and professionals in the compliance industry.

Related Posts

digital cybersecurity and network protection

Vetting Vendors’ Cybersecurity

January 26, 2021
illustration of man on ladder with binoculars, 2021 outlook concept

Financial Services Compliance in 2021

January 25, 2021
illustration of mafia man in silhouette with red tie

The Mafia’s Jackpot: How Criminal Organizations are Profiting from COVID-19

January 22, 2021
illustration of videoconference, screen and speech bubbles

New Risks as COVID-19 Forces Rapid Technology Adoption

January 21, 2021
Next Post
illustration of ransomware and hand paying ransom

Ransomware: It’s Time to Stop Negotiating

Access realtime data
Dynamic Risk Assessments with Workiva

Special Coverage

Special COVID page graphic

Jump to a Topic:

anti-corruption anti-money laundering/AML Artificial Intelligence/A.I. automation banks board of directors board risk oversight bribery CCPA/California Consumer Privacy Act Cloud Compliance communications management Coronavirus/COVID-19 corporate culture crisis management cyber crime cyber risk data analytics data breach data governance decision-making diversity DOJ due diligence fcpa enforcement actions financial crime GDPR GRC HIPAA information security internal audit KYC/know your customer machine learning monitoring regtech reputation risk risk assessment Sanctions SEC social media risk supply chain technology third party risk management tone at the top training whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS Feed

Category

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Whitepapers

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
  • Articles
  • Vendor News
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Whitepapers
  • eBooks
  • Events
  • Jobs
  • Subscribe

© 2019 Corporate Compliance Insights