In April 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) achieved its first successful criminal conviction for wage-fixing. A home healthcare executive was found guilty of conspiring to place a cap on wages for nurses in Las Vegas, between 2016 and 2019.  A wage-fixing agreement, along with no-poach agreements and illegal variations of non-compete agreements, are types of illegal restraint on worker income and movement. 

Wage Fixing 

A wage-fixing agreement is an illegal arrangement between two or more employers to set or cap employee wages at a certain level, rather than determining them by competition. These agreements, often made secretly, prevent employees from earning higher pay by limiting how much employers are willing to offer. Under U.S. antitrust law, and many state laws including California, wage fixing is treated as a form of price fixing and can lead to criminal prosecution by the Department of Justice, as it harms workers by suppressing wages and reducing labor market competition. 

In addition to possibly criminal charges, wage fixing can result in worker lawsuits in civil court. In January, a Maryland judge approved a $398 million settlement to resolve a class of alleged claims that major poultry processors shared data about compensation to suppress wages of workers at poultry plants. This follows a September 2024 settlement for $200 million regarding similar allegations in the pork and beef processing industry that companies conspired and coordinated compensation data to control wages. Slightly differently, the NCAA settled in May 2025 regarding alleged collusion to keep volunteer Division I baseball coaches completely unpaid. In this case the “volunteer” coaches received no compensation at all, and alleged the NCAA illegally coordinated keeping coaches unpaid. A judge in Sacramento has preliminarily approved a $49 million settlement for the coaches. 

No-Poach Agreements 

No-poach agreements between competitors in a market are designed to limit employee options, and ultimately result in reduced employee compensation. When two or more competitors implicitly or expressly agree to stop competing with one another, they are creating a “no-poach agreement”, also called “anti-poaching” or “non-poaching”.  

In January 2025, preliminary approval of a $60 million settlement was given by a Connecticut federal judge regarding allegations that companies in the aerospace industry had operated an illegal no-poach agreement to limit engineer wages. 

In May 2025, a federal appeals court ruled a prospective class action alleging shipbuilders maintained a non-compete agreement for naval architects and marine engineers was timely filed, reviving the case. The lower court had decided the lawsuit was filed too late, missing the four year statute of limitation window to file, but the appeal court has now reversed. 

Non-Compete Agreement  

A non-compete restricts the employee from working for a competitor, starting a similar business, or soliciting the employer’s clients for a specified period and within a defined geographic area. Employers use non-compete clauses to protect trade secrets, client relationships, and proprietary information. Many states allow non-compete agreements, although frequently with limitations. Some states such as California have effectively banned them completely. 

While legal non-compete agreements exist, it is also possible for the use of a non-compete agreement to be illegal.  In addition to use of non-compete agreements where they are not legal, how non-compete agreements are used or enforced can create market conditions similar to illegal no-poach agreements.  If two competitors agree to use non-compete agreements blocking workers leaving for each other’s companies, and agree to enforce them on employees attempting to switch companies, the result is a de facto no-poach agreement which is a per se direct violation of federal antitrust law. 

If the intent of a non-compete agreement is not to protect trade secrets, but to eliminate competition for labor, the industry may be engaging in illegal restraint of trade, harming worker wages and opening itself to lawsuits by affected employees. 

In January 2025, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission updated the Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activity Affecting Workers. The changes included warnings that antitrust laws may be violated if coordination occurs to establish or maintain enforcement of non-compete agreements. 

Wage-Fixing and Antitrust Lawyers 

If you believe you have been subjected to an illegal agreement or have questions about your rights, we encourage you to schedule a consultation with one of our Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim employment attorneys. Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP is a national law firm representing employees in a wide range of employment law cases, including class action lawsuits involving unpaid wages, overtime pay, and commissions. Contact us at 1-800-689-0024.