Where employee mobility becomes an antitrust question.
Esshaki Legal Media TeamCurrent as of September 2023
Agreements between employers restricting hiring or fixing compensation are
treated as antitrust violations rather than as ordinary contract terms.
Per se offenses. Naked agreements among competing employers not to solicit
or hire each other’s employees, and agreements on wages or wage components, are
market allocation and price fixing. Criminal prosecution has been brought,
though juries have not uniformly convicted.
Competing employers means competing for labor, which includes businesses
that do not compete in any product market.
Ancillary restraints. Restrictions reasonably necessary to a legitimate
collaboration — a joint venture, an acquisition, a services agreement — are
assessed under a rule of reason, and are lawful where reasonably limited in
scope, duration and the employees covered.
Information exchange about compensation among competitors, including through
surveys and benchmarking, requires structure: historical data, aggregated, from
enough participants, administered by a neutral third party.
Franchise systems. No-hire provisions among franchisees of the same brand
have been challenged, with courts divided on the applicable standard.
Practical compliance. Train recruiters and executives that informal
understandings carry the same exposure as written agreements, and route any
proposed hiring restriction through counsel.