AGs Argue Jackson Hewitt Must be Held to Account for No-Poach Agreements

  • A coalition of 19 Democratic AGs, led by New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin, filed an amicus brief in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in support of former tax preparers for Jackson Hewitt, Inc., who allege they were harmed by no-poach agreements signed with the tax preparation chain.
  • In the brief, the AGs argue that no-poach agreements are anticompetitive and have negative effects on the labor market including restricting worker mobility, depressing wages, and creating inefficiencies. They assert their commitment to aiding the development of federal antitrust law in the labor context and halting unlawful no-poach agreements in their jurisdictions.
  • The AGs urge the court to find that the no-poach agreements at issue in the putative class action are horizontal restraints that amount to per se violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
  • No-poach agreements continue to be an area of AG activity, such as the amicus brief recently filed by a group of 21 Democratic AGs in the Second Circuit in support of former Saks retail store employees alleging they were harmed by no-poach agreements.