Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Lessons Learned: The DOJ's Crackdown on Hiring Practices

By Danielle Alexis Clarkson and Ben Mitchell

Over the past several months, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has begun investigating several leading technology companies for possible violations of the antitrust laws. One focus of the DOJ's multi-faceted investigation is whether certain companies have violated antitrust laws by agreeing among themselves not to recruit one another's employees. As has been reported by several news sources, Silicon Valley companies are alleged to have “gentleman's understandings” that actively recruiting a competitor's employees is off-limits. Critics of such agreements claim that they stifle competition for employees by restricting free movement in the job market, thereby suppressing employee wages. On the other hand, the limited use of narrowly drafted no-hire agreements may be reasonable restraints originating from the settlement of legitimate disputes over the misappropriation of intellectual property by poaching a competitor's employees.

While a company's independent decision not to recruit from a competitor isn't likely to constitute a violation of antitrust laws, when two or more companies actively agree not to pursue each others' employees, the antitrust laws need to be considered. The DOJ has argued that where employers covenant not to poach a competitor's employees, such agreements may enable a company to monopolize a market in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act or, by harming a competitor's ability to hire the most qualified candidates, create an unreasonable restraint of trade in violation of Section 1. Although the DOJ investigation is currently focused on the technology industry, where intellectual property disputes are frequently litigated, the DOJ may expand its scrutiny to other industries. Therefore, in-house counsel in all areas of the economy should take time to examine and revise employee hiring and retention policies to avoid running afoul of antitrust laws.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.

Judge Rules Shaquille O'Neal Will Face Securities Lawsuit for Promotion, Sale of NFTs Image

A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.

Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?

Blockchain Domains: New Developments for Brand Owners Image

Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?