USA – ARIZONA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Dan Goldfine, John Desmond, Patrick Masterson and Alexis Taitel, Dickinson Wright PLLC
Antitrust enforcers’ increased focus on wage fixing In late 2016, the FTC and DOJ issued Antitrust Guid - ance for Human Resource Professionals, clarifying the FTC and DOJ’s position that certain agreements between employers (eg, no-poach, and wage-fixing) constitute per se violations of antitrust laws. Pursu - ant to the guidelines, the agencies demonstrated their intent to criminally prosecute such agreements. After initial enforcement actions proved unsuccessful, the DOJ obtained its first wage-fixing conviction nearly a decade after the issuance of the 2016 Antitrust Guid - ance for Human Resource Professionals. In 2023, Eduardo Lopez was indicted for allegedly participating in a conspiracy to fix wages for nursing services in Nevada from March 2016 until May 2019. ( United States v Lopez, (D. Nev. No. 23-cr-00055) .) Prosecutors alleged that Lopez, a home healthcare manager, had worked with others in the industry to fix the wages of home healthcare nurses in Las Vegas. After a nearly three-week trial, Lopez was convict - ed on 14 April 2025, of entering into an agreement to fix, control, raise, lower, maintain, or stabilise the wage paid, or to be paid, for nursing services. The criminal conviction demonstrates antitrust enforcers’ increased focus on potential antitrust violations in labour markets. Private plaintiffs will seek to ride the momentum from antitrust enforcers’ heightened focus on wage fixing. For example, on 8 August 2025, a judge in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss in Alvarado v W. Range Ass’n, (D. Nev., Case No. 3:22-CV-00249) . In denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss and allow - ing the putative class action to proceed to discovery, the court found that the plaintiff had plausibly alleged that the Western Range Association and its members engaged in an unlawful hub-and-spoke agreement to fix sheepherder wages and horizontally allocate the market for foreign sheepherders. (Id.) Moving forward, antitrust enforcers and private plaintiffs will likely seek to further develop the application of the antitrust laws in the labour context and sustain recent successes.
to overcome additional obstacles if they wish to con - tinue doing business with the company. Arizona Attorney General’s office merger enforcement and focus on labour In addition to Attorney General Meyes’ participation in conduct cases involving tech companies, the Attorney General’s office is joining efforts relating to merger enforcement. On 26 February 2024, Arizona joined the Federal Trade Commission and eight states in suing to block Kroger Company’s USD24.6 billion acquisition of competing supermarket Albertsons Companies, Inc. ( FTC et al. v The Kroger Co. and Albertsons Cos., Inc. (D. Or., Case No. 24-cv-00347). ) The FTC and joining states also issued an administrative complaint before the Federal Trade Commission. If completed, the merger would unify more than 5,000 supermarket stores and employ nearly 700,000 employees, includ - ing 250 stores and 35,000 employees in Arizona. On 10 December 2024, however, the United States District Court for the District of Oregon granted the FTC’s request for a preliminary injunction, temporarily blocking the merger. Following the court’s ruling, both Kroger and Albertsons abandoned the merger. In addition to its outcome, the arguments raised in challenging the merger are notable. Alongside con - cerns regarding harm to consumers – including higher prices and lower quality products and services – the merger’s impact on labour is a chief concern. The FTC and joining states specifically raised concern regard - ing the merger’s impact on organised labour. The merger enforcement could indicate an increased effort from the Arizona Attorney General’s office to challenge mergers, particularly when a merger potentially simul - taneously harms consumers and workers. Moving for - ward, businesses should continue to assess Attorney General Mayes’ alignment with the federal enforcers, particularly following the outcome of the 2024 presi - dential election.
296 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook