Rail Equipment Makers Agree to Settle Claims Over 'No-Poach' Agreements for Nearly $49M
The class action stems from allegations that Knorr, Wabtec and a company that was later purchased by Wabtec entered into agreements where they would not poach each other's workers.
February 25, 2020 at 03:11 PM
3 minute read
Two companies that make railroad equipment have agreed to pay nearly $49 million to resolve a class action lawsuit alleging that their so-called "no-poach" agreements violated antitrust law.
On Monday, attorneys from Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein and Fine, Kaplan and Black filed a motion for preliminary approval to settle the case In re Railway Industry Employee No-Poach Antitrust Litigation for $48.95 million. The settlement includes $12 million from equipment maker Knorr and $36.95 million from Wabtec, which develops electronic products for rail operations.
"These settlements were the product of extensive, hard-fought negotiations, provide significant payments to class members, and avoid the considerable risks, delays and expense of further litigation," Fine Kaplan attorney Roberta Liebenberg said in a press release announcing the settlement Tuesday. Liebenberg is serving as interim co-lead counsel in the litigation.
The brief outlining the settlement to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania said the accord should provide an average recovery of $5,830 for each class member before attorney fees. The brief, however, did not include a specific request for fees, but said the court will determine the fee awards after co-lead counsels submit fee applications. The brief did request a reimbursement of about 715,000 in out-of-pocket expenses.
"We are very proud of this result," said Dean M. Harvey of San Francisco-based Lieff Cabraser, who is co-lead class counsel. "The settlements provide among the largest class member recoveries of any comparable case, and do so in record time."
The class action stems from allegations that Knorr, Wabtec and a company that was later purchased by Wabtec entered into agreements where they would not poach each other's workers. According to the plaintiffs' allegations, the labor market for rail industry employees is very competitive, as there is high demand and limited supply of skilled and experienced workers. The plaintiffs contended that lateral hiring is a key component of the market, and typically companies will directly solicit the employees of competitor companies.
However, according to the plaintiffs' allegations, around 2009 the companies agreed to not hire each other's employees without first getting consent from the other company. The plaintiffs argued that this kept their compensation rates at artificially low levels, and substantially hindered competition between the companies for workers, resulting in fewer job opportunities, suppressed wages and restricted job mobility.
The plaintiffs further said defendants kept the agreements secret, until the U.S. Department of Justice in April 2018 announced a settlement with the companies that barred them from continuing the no-poach practices.
According to the brief to the court, Knorr agreed to its portion of the settlement in August 2019, and that accord acted as an "icebreaker" for Wabtec to settle. The memo said recently retired Judge Thomas Vanaskie of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit oversaw the mediation sessions.
Baker McKenzie attorney Mark Hamer, who is representing Knorr, declined to comment on the proposed settlement. Melissa Tea of K&L Gates, who represented Wabtec, did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllKraft Heinz Hires GC of Industrial Manufacturer as Legal Chief
Mastercard CLO Exits After Just 14 Months, Takes Legal Reins of Laser Manufacturer
3 minute readBlack Worker Who Allegedly Faced Racist Harassment At Manufacturing Job Sues Employer, Staffing Company
Judge Approves $51M Settlement in Shareholder Suit Against Medical Equipment Company
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1People in the News—Nov. 21, 2024—Willig Williams, Hangley Aronchick
- 2Rawle & Henderson Hires New Del. Managing Partner
- 3Divided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
- 4Construction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
- 5Phila. Jury Hits Sig Sauer With $11M Verdict Over Alleged Gun Defect
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250