{"id":1122,"date":"2024-01-22T19:11:04","date_gmt":"2024-01-22T23:11:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/?p=1122"},"modified":"2024-01-22T19:11:04","modified_gmt":"2024-01-22T23:11:04","slug":"illinois-supreme-court-opens-the-door-for-more-wage-hour-antitrust-class-actions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/2024\/01\/22\/illinois-supreme-court-opens-the-door-for-more-wage-hour-antitrust-class-actions\/","title":{"rendered":"Illinois Supreme Court Opens The Door For More Wage & Hour Antitrust Class Actions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean P. McConnell<\/strong><\/p>\n

Duane Morris Takeaways<\/u><\/em>:<\/strong> On January 19, 2024, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held<\/a> that the Illinois Antitrust Act does not allow staffing agencies to avoid allegations that they suppressed wages and agreed not to hire each other\u2019s workers in The State of Illinois ex rel. Kwame Raoul v. Elite Staffing, Inc., et al., No. 2024 IL 128763 (Ill. Jan. 19, 2024). The Supreme Court rejected defense arguments that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because the Illinois Antitrust Act provides that services otherwise subject to the Act \u201cshall not be deemed to include labor which is performed by natural persons as employees of others.\u201d Id. at 3. The Supreme Court concluded that reading the Illinois Antitrust Act so broadly would contradict the entire purpose of the Act, i.e., promoting and protecting free and fair competition; therefore it found that the Act does not exclude all agreements concerning labor services, including the conduct alleged.<\/em><\/p>\n

Illinois v. Elite Staffing is an important reminder that businesses must be mindful of state antitrust and competition laws, in addition to the federal antitrust laws, and is required reading for any corporate counsel handling antitrust class action litigation under state antitrust and competition laws involving wage-suppression issues.<\/em><\/p>\n

Case Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

In July 2020, the Illinois Attorney General sued Elite Staffing Inc., Metro Staff Inc., Midway Staffing Inc. and their common customer, Colony Inc., on grounds that Colony required the staffing agencies not to poach each other\u2019s employees and to agree to below-market wages for temporary workers at Colony. The three staffing firms provided a Colony facility with temporary workers beginning in 2018 where between 200 and 1,000 temporary workers would work at any given time. According to the allegations in the Complaint, Colony required the staffing agencies not to offer better wages or other benefits to any of each other\u2019s workers and precluded the workers from trying to switch between the agencies. The Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint arguing that the alleged conduct was exempted from antitrust liability under the Illinois Antitrust Act. The circuit court denied the motion, and the Illinois Appellate Court concluded that the exemption in the Act did not extend to services provided by staffing agencies. The Illinois Supreme Court thereafter granted Defendants\u2019 petition for leave to appeal.<\/p>\n

Illinois Antitrust Act Does Not Exclude All Agreements Concerning Labor<\/strong><\/p>\n

Section 4 of the Illinois Antitrust Act exempts from coverage \u201clabor which is performed by natural persons as employees of others.\u201d See <\/em>740 ILCS \u00a7 10\/4. This section is important because, among other reasons, \u00a7 3 of the Illinois Antitrust Act, which is expressly modeled after \u00a7 1 of the Sherman Act and federal court interpretations thereof, would otherwise proscribe the conduct alleged in the Complaint. The Supreme Court noted that just as reading \u00a71 of the Sherman Act to prohibit every restraint on competition would be absurd, so too would be reading \u00a7 4 of the Illinois Antitrust Act in isolation. Specifically, the Supreme Court found that \u201cservice\u201d cannot be read so broadly as to exempt all agreements concerning wages and conditions of employment from antitrust scrutiny regardless of their anticompetitive effects, which would be contrary to the entire purposes of the Illinois Antitrust Act. Id<\/em> at 19. The Supreme Court concluded that agreements between employers that concern wages or hiring may violate the Illinois Antitrust Act unless it is part of a collective bargaining process.<\/p>\n

Implications For Employers<\/strong><\/p>\n

Illinois v. Elite Staffing<\/em> opens to door for workers in Illinois to use state antitrust law to tilt labor market dynamics in their favor and to increase their bargaining leverage for greater compensation and benefits. It serves as an important reminder for employers to also be mindful of state antitrust and competition laws when making labor market decisions.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Sean P. McConnell Duane Morris Takeaways: On January 19, 2024, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously held that the Illinois Antitrust Act does not allow staffing agencies to avoid allegations that they suppressed wages and agreed not to hire each other\u2019s workers in The State of Illinois ex rel. Kwame … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Illinois Supreme Court Opens The Door For More Wage & Hour Antitrust Class Actions”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":583,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[99],"tags":[],"ppma_author":[30],"class_list":["post-1122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-antitrust-class-actions"],"authors":[{"term_id":30,"user_id":583,"is_guest":0,"slug":"classactiondefense","display_name":"Class Action Defense","avatar_url":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/56\/2020\/10\/dmlogo.jpg","0":null,"1":"","2":"","3":"","4":"","5":"","6":"","7":"","8":""}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/583"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1122"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1122\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1122"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.duanemorris.com\/classactiondefense\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/ppma_author?post=1122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}