Antitrust Class Action Claims Current, Former Jiffy Lube Workers Owed Unpaid Wages Due to No-Poach Clauses [UPDATE]

New to ClassAction.org? Read our Newswire Disclaimer

Jiffy Lube International, Inc. has been hit with a proposed class action wherein the car maintenance and repair services franchise is accused of including unlawful no-poach provisions in its franchise agreements that ultimately suppress employees’ wages.

Also filed against co-defendants Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Shell Oil Company, and Pennzoil-Quaker State Company, the lawsuit alleges Jiffy Lube franchise agreements contain a clause that forbids shop owners from soliciting employees from one another. In effect, the case explains, a Jiffy Lube shop cannot hire anyone who has worked at another Jiffy Lube within the previous six months. This practice effectively suppresses competition among workers, the lawsuit argues, resulting in lower pay across the board.

The case points out that many other big-name franchises—such as McDonald’s and Jimmy John’s—have been chastised by federal courts and states’ attorneys general for implementing no-poach clauses, including “at least 30 national chains” that reportedly pledged to remove such provisions from their franchise agreements. Though it commends these efforts, the lawsuit argues that Jiffy Lube workers are still owed for lost wages stemming from the defendants’ allegedly anticompetitive behavior.

“While eliminating these anticompetitive clauses will help workers going forward, current and former employees of Jiffy Lube—including [the plaintiff]—are owed antitrust damages for years of wage suppression,” the complaint reads. “This action seeks to recover these damages and obtain additional injunctive relief on behalf of [the plaintiff] and similarly situated Jiffy Lube workers.”