Medical Center Employee No-Poach Litigation

ABOUT THE CASE

As Interim Co-Lead Counsel, the Joseph Saveri Law Firm represents a potential class of senior-level outpatient health care employees in an antitrust suit against defendants Surgical Care Affiliates (SCA); United Surgical Partners International (USPI); DaVita Inc.; Davita Inc.’s Chief Executive Officer and Chairman/Co-Chairman of Board Directors, Kevin Thiry; UnitedHealth Group; Tenet Healthcare; and at least one other unnamed co-conspirator (“Medical Center Employee No-Poach Litigation”). Medical Center Employee No-Poach Litigation alleges violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 4 of the Clayton Act.

Plaintiffs allege defendants entered into agreements not to compete for senior-level employees in the United States. These agreements ran from no later than 2010 until at least 2017. SCA and USPI are two of the largest providers of outpatient medical care in the United States.

Defendants’ agreements were not necessary to any legitimate business transaction or lawful collaboration among the companies. Defendants’ conspiracy was strictly a tool to suppress their senior-level employees’ compensation, thereby reducing their own expenses. Defendants’ agreements accomplished their purpose by reducing competition for defendants’ senior-level employees and suppressing defendants’ senior-level employees’ compensation below competitive levels. The conspiracy disrupted the efficient allocation of labor that would have existed if defendants had competed for, rather than colluded against, their current and prospective senior-level employees.

Defendants’ agreements also denied their senior-level employees’ access to job opportunities, restricted their mobility, and deprived them of significant information that they could have used to negotiate for better compensation and terms of employment.

If you worked for SCA between 2010 and 2017, you may have been impacted by these illegal and anticompetitive agreements. To find out more information about our medical center employee no-poach litigation or if you are interested in holding SCA and its co-conspirators accountable, please contact the Firm.

Please rest assured that any information you provide to us will be kept strictly confidential as provided by law.

CASE STATUS

In the suit—In re Outpatient Medical Center Employee Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:21-cv-00305, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois—the potential class seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief to prevent defendants from retaining the benefits of their alleged unlawful agreements in restraint of trade. On May 17, 2021, the Court consolidated related cases and appointed the firm Interim Co-Lead Counsel.

In January 2021, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) indicted SCA for these anticompetitive agreements. In its indictment, the DOJ alleged SCA conspired with other health care companies to “suppress competition . . . for senior level employees” in violation of federal antitrust laws. The DOJ is pursuing criminal charges, which are different from civil liability that defendants may face from employees affected by their anticompetitive conduct.

On November 3, 2021, the DOJ issued a superseding grand jury indictment against defendants DaVita Inc., formerly known as DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc. (DaVita), and its Chief Executive Officer and Board of Directors Chairman/Co-Chairman Kevin Thiry. The DOJ alleges that beginning at least as early as February 2012 and continuing at least as late as July 2017, DaVita and Thiry entered a conspiracy with defendant SCA to suppress competition by agreeing not to solicit or hire each other’s senior-level employees. The indictment also alleges that, beginning at least as early as April 2017 and continuing at least as late as June 2019, DaVita and Thiry conspired with “Company B” and its CEO “Individual 3” by agreeing that Company B would not solicit DaVita’s employees. The alleged conspiracy had the purpose and effect of suppressing defendant’s employees’ mobility and compensation and unlawfully reducing competition.