Pratt & Whitney settles engineers' no-poach lawsuit for $33 mln
Settlements in litigation total $60 million
Pratt was last defendant in the antitrust case
By Mike Scarcella
Sept 3 (Reuters) -Aerospace giant RTX’s Pratt & Whitney unit has agreed to pay $33 million to resolve a class action claiming it artificially suppressed wages for tens of thousands of current and former engineers.
The company disclosed on Friday it had reached a deal in principle in a filing in Connecticut federal court, where lawsuits were filed in 2022 claiming Pratt and five engineering staffing firms violated U.S. antitrust law by agreeing not to poach employees from each other.
The full terms of the deal will be presented to the court in the coming weeks, but a source familiar with the proposal said RTX had agreed to pay $33 million to exit the litigation. The settlement requires approval by U.S. District Judge Sarala Nagala.
RTX's Pratt & Whitney, which has denied any wrongdoing, was the remaining defendant in a lawsuit that was a consolidation of related cases. RTX declined to comment on Tuesday.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs at law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and DiCello Levitt did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Nine named plaintiffs, all former engineers for Pratt and other defendants, sued Pratt and the staffing firms after the U.S. Justice Department in late 2021 charged a former Pratt executive and others in a criminal conspiracy to restrict employee mobility.
After a trial in that case, a federal judge acquitted the defendants before the jury issued a verdict.
Nagala was assigned to oversee more than 20 similar civil lawsuits against Pratt and the other defendants.
The plaintiffs in the civil cases alleged Pratt led a conspiracy to restrict recruitment and hiring, keeping engineers’ wages lower than they otherwise would have been in a competitive market. The lawsuits sought compensation for a class estimated at 43,000 members.
In earlier proposed settlements, Belcan Engineering said it would pay $9.9 million, QuEST Global Services agreed to pay $8.2 million, Cyient agreed to pay $7.4 million, and Agilis Engineering settled for $1 million.
A fifth defendant, Parametric Solutions, is in bankruptcy and agreed to cooperate with the plaintiffs but not pay any monetary penalty.
Agilis, which had a leniency agreement with the U.S. Justice Department, admitted to the plaintiffs that the company participated in a recruitment-related conspiracy. The other defendants have denied any wrongdoing.
The case is Borozny v. Raytheon Technologies Corp, Pratt & Whitney Division, U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, No. 3:21-cv-01657.
For plaintiffs: Daniel Brockett of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan; and Gregory Asciolla of DiCello Levitt
For RTX: Chahira Solh of Crowell & Moring; and John Cerreta of Day Pitney
Read more:
Engineering firms to pay $26.5 mln to exit antitrust lawsuit over wages
Aerospace managers acquitted in labor-related antitrust prosecution
Quinn Emanuel, DiCello firms will lead 'no poach' aerospace lawsuits
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
