Client Alert: Acquittal of Aerospace Employees Marks the Department of Justice’s Fourth, and Most Damaging, Criminal No-Poach Loss
Publications
May 9, 2023
By: Debbie Berman, Andrew W. Vail, Jason M. Bradford, Joseph Torres, Casey L.M. Carlson
United States District Court Acquits all Defendants in US v. Patel
On April 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut acquitted the defendants in US v. Patel of the charges of conspiring to allocate the labor market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act through the use of no-poach agreements. This ruling comes despite the fact that the Court declined to dismiss the charges last year. This is an important ruling because the court rejected the government’s position that no-poach agreements are per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. The decision continues a trend of losses for the government in this area.
Patel is one of several recent criminal prosecutions brought by the DOJ’s Antitrust Division targeting employers that allegedly entered into no-poach agreements in violation of the Sherman Act.[1] The 2021 Patel indictment alleged that the defendants, six aerospace and staffing company employees, had entered into a conspiracy to suppress competition by agreeing to “restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled-labor employees between and among [the defendants’ companies].”[2] Specifically, the government alleged that defendants stepped in to “block” the hiring of their employees by other companies.[3]
The Patel court followed the Colorado District Court’s rulings in United States v. DaVita Inc., holding that to receive per se treatment, the government must prove that the alleged agreement was a market allocation that restricted competition in the labor market to a “meaningful extent”.[4]
After hearing evidence on whether the agreements at issue met this definition, the Patel court sided with the defendants and held that, “as a matter of law, this case does not involve a market allocation under the per se rule.”[5] In its opinion, the court drew heavily from the Second Circuit’s decision in Bogan v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. and the DaVita Inc. case, which involved similar allegations of employers’ anticompetitive conduct. The court noted that the agreement in question “had so many exceptions,” including where engineers had already separated from their prior employer “that it could not be said to meaningfully allocate the labor market of engineers.” Therefore, the per se rule did not apply.[6]
Rejection of the Per Se Rule Calls DOJ’s No-Poach Prosecutions into Question
The Connecticut District Court’s decision in Patel is not only the DOJ’s fourth loss in criminal no-poach prosecutions, but it also represents a significant blow to the government’s legal position in these prosecutions. The DOJ has consistently taken the position that no poach agreements are themselves per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. Notably, as a matter of policy, the DOJ currently only prosecutes criminal antitrust cases that receive per se treatment.
Accordingly, the outcome of Patel, along with decisions in earlier cases like DaVita,[7] are casting doubt on the DOJ’s strategy and calling its enthusiasm for prosecuting this type of conduct into question. As recently as March of this year, the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division described its work to curb alleged employer antitrust violations as “righteous.”[8] But with their focus on market allocation, these recent decisions indicate that the government may not be able secure convictions simply by proving that a no-poach agreement exists, but must instead go further and establish that the restraint is not ancillary to a legitimate pro-competitive business objective.
Employers Should Remain Vigilant in Assessing Potential Liability
Despite the DOJ’s losses, employers should remain cautious when engaging in conduct that may limit employee mobility. The Patel court expressly left open the possibility that a no-poach agreement without exceptions could be considered a per se market allocation agreement. Accordingly, employers still should avoid discussing hiring practices with other companies and tread carefully in this area. These acquittals do not suggest a “green light” for the alleged behavior in Patel, but instead offer future defendants a body of law to draw from and, perhaps, more leverage, when defending these types of allegations.
To keep up with recent trends related to no-poach litigation, non-compete disputes, and other topics related to restrictive covenants, see Jenner & Block’s Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenants Library.[9]
Patel is one of several recent criminal prosecutions brought by the DOJ’s Antitrust Division targeting employers that allegedly entered into no-poach agreements in violation of the Sherman Act.[1] The 2021 Patel indictment alleged that the defendants, six aerospace and staffing company employees, had entered into a conspiracy to suppress competition by agreeing to “restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled-labor employees between and among [the defendants’ companies].”[2] Specifically, the government alleged that defendants stepped in to “block” the hiring of their employees by other companies.[3]
The Patel court followed the Colorado District Court’s rulings in United States v. DaVita Inc., holding that to receive per se treatment, the government must prove that the alleged agreement was a market allocation that restricted competition in the labor market to a “meaningful extent”.[4]
After hearing evidence on whether the agreements at issue met this definition, the Patel court sided with the defendants and held that, “as a matter of law, this case does not involve a market allocation under the per se rule.”[5] In its opinion, the court drew heavily from the Second Circuit’s decision in Bogan v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. and the DaVita Inc. case, which involved similar allegations of employers’ anticompetitive conduct. The court noted that the agreement in question “had so many exceptions,” including where engineers had already separated from their prior employer “that it could not be said to meaningfully allocate the labor market of engineers.” Therefore, the per se rule did not apply.[6]
Rejection of the Per Se Rule Calls DOJ’s No-Poach Prosecutions into Question
The Connecticut District Court’s decision in Patel is not only the DOJ’s fourth loss in criminal no-poach prosecutions, but it also represents a significant blow to the government’s legal position in these prosecutions. The DOJ has consistently taken the position that no poach agreements are themselves per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. Notably, as a matter of policy, the DOJ currently only prosecutes criminal antitrust cases that receive per se treatment.
Accordingly, the outcome of Patel, along with decisions in earlier cases like DaVita,[7] are casting doubt on the DOJ’s strategy and calling its enthusiasm for prosecuting this type of conduct into question. As recently as March of this year, the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division described its work to curb alleged employer antitrust violations as “righteous.”[8] But with their focus on market allocation, these recent decisions indicate that the government may not be able secure convictions simply by proving that a no-poach agreement exists, but must instead go further and establish that the restraint is not ancillary to a legitimate pro-competitive business objective.
Employers Should Remain Vigilant in Assessing Potential Liability
Despite the DOJ’s losses, employers should remain cautious when engaging in conduct that may limit employee mobility. The Patel court expressly left open the possibility that a no-poach agreement without exceptions could be considered a per se market allocation agreement. Accordingly, employers still should avoid discussing hiring practices with other companies and tread carefully in this area. These acquittals do not suggest a “green light” for the alleged behavior in Patel, but instead offer future defendants a body of law to draw from and, perhaps, more leverage, when defending these types of allegations.
To keep up with recent trends related to no-poach litigation, non-compete disputes, and other topics related to restrictive covenants, see Jenner & Block’s Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenants Library.[9]
[1] United States v. Patel, et al., No. 3:21-cr-220, ECF No. 599 (Apr. 28, 2023, D. Conn.).
[2] Patel, ECF 20 at 4.
[3] Id. at 6.
[4] Patel, ECF 257 at 17, 21.
[5] Patel, ECF 599 at 11.
[6] Id. at 17.
[7] For additional commentary on DaVita, see Department of Justice Prosecutions in Employment Related Antitrust Suits Fall Flat (April 27, 2022) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-department-of-justice-prosecutions-in-employment-related-antitrust-suits-fall-flat-in-davita-inc-and-jindal.
[8] Bryan Koenig, DOJ Antitrust Head Calls No-Poach Prosecutions ‘Righteous’, Law360 (March 3, 2023) https://www.law360.com/articles/1592488.
[9] See, e.g.,; The Department of Justice Fails to Persuade Jury in Most Recent No-Poach Prosecution Defeat (March 29, 2023), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-department-of-justice-fails-to-persuade-jury-in-most-recent-no-poach-prosecution-defeat; Stakeholders Speak Out During Webinar on FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Noncompetes (March 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-stakeholders-speak-out-during-webinar-on-ftcs-proposed-rule-banning-noncompetes; The FTC Proposes Ban on Non-Competes (January 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-ftc-proposes-ban-on-non-competes; Latest Decisions in Criminal No-Poach and Civil Non-Compete Cases Indicate Continuing Scrutiny of Restrictive Covenants (July 12, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21903; DOJ Continues to Push Against Non-Competes, Non-Solicitations, and Other Post-Employment Restrictions (Mar. 1, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21633.
Footnotes
[1] United States v. Patel, et al., No. 3:21-cr-220, ECF No. 599 (Apr. 28, 2023, D. Conn.).
[2] Patel, ECF 20 at 4.
[3] Id. at 6.
[4] Patel, ECF 257 at 17, 21.
[5] Patel, ECF 599 at 11.
[6] Id. at 17.
[7] For additional commentary on DaVita, see Department of Justice Prosecutions in Employment Related Antitrust Suits Fall Flat (April 27, 2022) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-department-of-justice-prosecutions-in-employment-related-antitrust-suits-fall-flat-in-davita-inc-and-jindal.
[8] Bryan Koenig, DOJ Antitrust Head Calls No-Poach Prosecutions ‘Righteous’, Law360 (March 3, 2023) https://www.law360.com/articles/1592488.
[9] See, e.g.,; The Department of Justice Fails to Persuade Jury in Most Recent No-Poach Prosecution Defeat (March 29, 2023), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-department-of-justice-fails-to-persuade-jury-in-most-recent-no-poach-prosecution-defeat; Stakeholders Speak Out During Webinar on FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Noncompetes (March 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-stakeholders-speak-out-during-webinar-on-ftcs-proposed-rule-banning-noncompetes; The FTC Proposes Ban on Non-Competes (January 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-ftc-proposes-ban-on-non-competes; Latest Decisions in Criminal No-Poach and Civil Non-Compete Cases Indicate Continuing Scrutiny of Restrictive Covenants (July 12, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21903; DOJ Continues to Push Against Non-Competes, Non-Solicitations, and Other Post-Employment Restrictions (Mar. 1, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21633.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
Publications
May 9, 2023
By: Debbie Berman, Andrew W. Vail, Jason M. Bradford, Joseph Torres, Casey L.M. Carlson
United States District Court Acquits all Defendants in US v. Patel
On April 28, 2023, the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut acquitted the defendants in US v. Patel of the charges of conspiring to allocate the labor market in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act through the use of no-poach agreements. This ruling comes despite the fact that the Court declined to dismiss the charges last year. This is an important ruling because the court rejected the government’s position that no-poach agreements are per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. The decision continues a trend of losses for the government in this area.
Patel is one of several recent criminal prosecutions brought by the DOJ’s Antitrust Division targeting employers that allegedly entered into no-poach agreements in violation of the Sherman Act.[1] The 2021 Patel indictment alleged that the defendants, six aerospace and staffing company employees, had entered into a conspiracy to suppress competition by agreeing to “restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled-labor employees between and among [the defendants’ companies].”[2] Specifically, the government alleged that defendants stepped in to “block” the hiring of their employees by other companies.[3]
The Patel court followed the Colorado District Court’s rulings in United States v. DaVita Inc., holding that to receive per se treatment, the government must prove that the alleged agreement was a market allocation that restricted competition in the labor market to a “meaningful extent”.[4]
After hearing evidence on whether the agreements at issue met this definition, the Patel court sided with the defendants and held that, “as a matter of law, this case does not involve a market allocation under the per se rule.”[5] In its opinion, the court drew heavily from the Second Circuit’s decision in Bogan v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. and the DaVita Inc. case, which involved similar allegations of employers’ anticompetitive conduct. The court noted that the agreement in question “had so many exceptions,” including where engineers had already separated from their prior employer “that it could not be said to meaningfully allocate the labor market of engineers.” Therefore, the per se rule did not apply.[6]
Rejection of the Per Se Rule Calls DOJ’s No-Poach Prosecutions into Question
The Connecticut District Court’s decision in Patel is not only the DOJ’s fourth loss in criminal no-poach prosecutions, but it also represents a significant blow to the government’s legal position in these prosecutions. The DOJ has consistently taken the position that no poach agreements are themselves per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. Notably, as a matter of policy, the DOJ currently only prosecutes criminal antitrust cases that receive per se treatment.
Accordingly, the outcome of Patel, along with decisions in earlier cases like DaVita,[7] are casting doubt on the DOJ’s strategy and calling its enthusiasm for prosecuting this type of conduct into question. As recently as March of this year, the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division described its work to curb alleged employer antitrust violations as “righteous.”[8] But with their focus on market allocation, these recent decisions indicate that the government may not be able secure convictions simply by proving that a no-poach agreement exists, but must instead go further and establish that the restraint is not ancillary to a legitimate pro-competitive business objective.
Employers Should Remain Vigilant in Assessing Potential Liability
Despite the DOJ’s losses, employers should remain cautious when engaging in conduct that may limit employee mobility. The Patel court expressly left open the possibility that a no-poach agreement without exceptions could be considered a per se market allocation agreement. Accordingly, employers still should avoid discussing hiring practices with other companies and tread carefully in this area. These acquittals do not suggest a “green light” for the alleged behavior in Patel, but instead offer future defendants a body of law to draw from and, perhaps, more leverage, when defending these types of allegations.
To keep up with recent trends related to no-poach litigation, non-compete disputes, and other topics related to restrictive covenants, see Jenner & Block’s Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenants Library.[9]
Patel is one of several recent criminal prosecutions brought by the DOJ’s Antitrust Division targeting employers that allegedly entered into no-poach agreements in violation of the Sherman Act.[1] The 2021 Patel indictment alleged that the defendants, six aerospace and staffing company employees, had entered into a conspiracy to suppress competition by agreeing to “restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled-labor employees between and among [the defendants’ companies].”[2] Specifically, the government alleged that defendants stepped in to “block” the hiring of their employees by other companies.[3]
The Patel court followed the Colorado District Court’s rulings in United States v. DaVita Inc., holding that to receive per se treatment, the government must prove that the alleged agreement was a market allocation that restricted competition in the labor market to a “meaningful extent”.[4]
After hearing evidence on whether the agreements at issue met this definition, the Patel court sided with the defendants and held that, “as a matter of law, this case does not involve a market allocation under the per se rule.”[5] In its opinion, the court drew heavily from the Second Circuit’s decision in Bogan v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. and the DaVita Inc. case, which involved similar allegations of employers’ anticompetitive conduct. The court noted that the agreement in question “had so many exceptions,” including where engineers had already separated from their prior employer “that it could not be said to meaningfully allocate the labor market of engineers.” Therefore, the per se rule did not apply.[6]
Rejection of the Per Se Rule Calls DOJ’s No-Poach Prosecutions into Question
The Connecticut District Court’s decision in Patel is not only the DOJ’s fourth loss in criminal no-poach prosecutions, but it also represents a significant blow to the government’s legal position in these prosecutions. The DOJ has consistently taken the position that no poach agreements are themselves per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. Notably, as a matter of policy, the DOJ currently only prosecutes criminal antitrust cases that receive per se treatment.
Accordingly, the outcome of Patel, along with decisions in earlier cases like DaVita,[7] are casting doubt on the DOJ’s strategy and calling its enthusiasm for prosecuting this type of conduct into question. As recently as March of this year, the head of the DOJ’s Antitrust Division described its work to curb alleged employer antitrust violations as “righteous.”[8] But with their focus on market allocation, these recent decisions indicate that the government may not be able secure convictions simply by proving that a no-poach agreement exists, but must instead go further and establish that the restraint is not ancillary to a legitimate pro-competitive business objective.
Employers Should Remain Vigilant in Assessing Potential Liability
Despite the DOJ’s losses, employers should remain cautious when engaging in conduct that may limit employee mobility. The Patel court expressly left open the possibility that a no-poach agreement without exceptions could be considered a per se market allocation agreement. Accordingly, employers still should avoid discussing hiring practices with other companies and tread carefully in this area. These acquittals do not suggest a “green light” for the alleged behavior in Patel, but instead offer future defendants a body of law to draw from and, perhaps, more leverage, when defending these types of allegations.
To keep up with recent trends related to no-poach litigation, non-compete disputes, and other topics related to restrictive covenants, see Jenner & Block’s Trade Secret and Restrictive Covenants Library.[9]
[1] United States v. Patel, et al., No. 3:21-cr-220, ECF No. 599 (Apr. 28, 2023, D. Conn.).
[2] Patel, ECF 20 at 4.
[3] Id. at 6.
[4] Patel, ECF 257 at 17, 21.
[5] Patel, ECF 599 at 11.
[6] Id. at 17.
[7] For additional commentary on DaVita, see Department of Justice Prosecutions in Employment Related Antitrust Suits Fall Flat (April 27, 2022) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-department-of-justice-prosecutions-in-employment-related-antitrust-suits-fall-flat-in-davita-inc-and-jindal.
[8] Bryan Koenig, DOJ Antitrust Head Calls No-Poach Prosecutions ‘Righteous’, Law360 (March 3, 2023) https://www.law360.com/articles/1592488.
[9] See, e.g.,; The Department of Justice Fails to Persuade Jury in Most Recent No-Poach Prosecution Defeat (March 29, 2023), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-department-of-justice-fails-to-persuade-jury-in-most-recent-no-poach-prosecution-defeat; Stakeholders Speak Out During Webinar on FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Noncompetes (March 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-stakeholders-speak-out-during-webinar-on-ftcs-proposed-rule-banning-noncompetes; The FTC Proposes Ban on Non-Competes (January 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-ftc-proposes-ban-on-non-competes; Latest Decisions in Criminal No-Poach and Civil Non-Compete Cases Indicate Continuing Scrutiny of Restrictive Covenants (July 12, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21903; DOJ Continues to Push Against Non-Competes, Non-Solicitations, and Other Post-Employment Restrictions (Mar. 1, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21633.
Footnotes
[1] United States v. Patel, et al., No. 3:21-cr-220, ECF No. 599 (Apr. 28, 2023, D. Conn.).
[2] Patel, ECF 20 at 4.
[3] Id. at 6.
[4] Patel, ECF 257 at 17, 21.
[5] Patel, ECF 599 at 11.
[6] Id. at 17.
[7] For additional commentary on DaVita, see Department of Justice Prosecutions in Employment Related Antitrust Suits Fall Flat (April 27, 2022) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-department-of-justice-prosecutions-in-employment-related-antitrust-suits-fall-flat-in-davita-inc-and-jindal.
[8] Bryan Koenig, DOJ Antitrust Head Calls No-Poach Prosecutions ‘Righteous’, Law360 (March 3, 2023) https://www.law360.com/articles/1592488.
[9] See, e.g.,; The Department of Justice Fails to Persuade Jury in Most Recent No-Poach Prosecution Defeat (March 29, 2023), https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-department-of-justice-fails-to-persuade-jury-in-most-recent-no-poach-prosecution-defeat; Stakeholders Speak Out During Webinar on FTC’s Proposed Rule Banning Noncompetes (March 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-stakeholders-speak-out-during-webinar-on-ftcs-proposed-rule-banning-noncompetes; The FTC Proposes Ban on Non-Competes (January 6, 2023) https://www.jenner.com/en/news-insights/publications/client-alert-the-ftc-proposes-ban-on-non-competes; Latest Decisions in Criminal No-Poach and Civil Non-Compete Cases Indicate Continuing Scrutiny of Restrictive Covenants (July 12, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21903; DOJ Continues to Push Against Non-Competes, Non-Solicitations, and Other Post-Employment Restrictions (Mar. 1, 2022), https://jenner.com/library/publications/21633.
Related Attorneys
Related Capabilities
© 2026 Jenner & Block LLP. Attorney Advertising. Jenner & Block LLP is an Illinois Limited Liability Partnership including professional corporations. This publication, presentation, or event is not intended to provide legal advice but to provide information on legal matters and/or firm news of interest to our clients and colleagues. Readers or attendees should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to matters mentioned in this publication or at this event. The attorney responsible for this communication is Brent E. Kidwell, Jenner & Block LLP, 353 N. Clark Street, Chicago, IL 60654-3456. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Jenner & Block London LLP, an affiliate of Jenner & Block LLP, is a limited liability partnership established under the laws of the State of Delaware, USA and is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority with SRA number 615729. Information regarding the data we collect and the rights you have over your data can be found in our Privacy Notice. For further inquiries, please contact dataprotection@jenner.com.
News and Insights
Podcasts
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon Discusses Fintech Enforcement, Debanking, and Regulatory Risk on Fintech Layer Cake Podcast
Partner Laurel Loomis Rimon was featured on the Fintech Layer Cake podcast, where she discussed how fintech enforcement and prosecution actually work in practice, and what exposes fintechs and banks to regulatory risk.
July 15, 2026
Publications
Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Company Act, Private Equity Law Report
Partners Charles Riely, Todd C. Toral, and Martin Glass authored a guest article for Private Equity Law Report examining the US Supreme Court's June 11, 2026, ruling on the scope of private rights of action under the Investment Company Act of 1940.
July 14, 2026
Publications
Emily Loeb Discusses Congressional Oversight Preparedness in Bloomberg Law
Partner Emily Loeb, co-chair of Jenner & Block's Congressional Investigations Practice, spoke with Bloomberg Law article about how companies can prepare for potential oversight exposure ahead of this fall's midterm elections.
July 7, 2026
Publications
In New York Law Journal, The True Lender Doctrine and the OppFi Decision
Partners Jeremy Creelan, Michael Ross, Megan Poetzel, and Laurel Loomis Rimon, and Associate Molly Oberstein-Allen authored an article for the New York Law Journal examining the "True Lender" doctrine in light of a May 2026 California decision that provides the most detailed judicial framework to date for evaluating bank-nonbank lending partnerships.
July 1, 2026
Event
Partner Michael Vernick to Speak at NACUA's 2026 Annual Conference
On July 1, Partner Michael Vernick will speak on a panel at the National Association of College and University Attorneys (NACUA) 2026 Annual Conference in Nashville.
July 1, 2026