On April 14, 2025, a federal jury in Nevada convicted a home healthcare nursing executive on one count of conspiracy to fix wages and five counts of wire fraud after a 15-day trial. The verdict represents the DOJ’s first criminal antitrust conviction relating to labor markets after a string of losses in cases dating back to 2020. In prior cases, the DOJ failed to obtain convictions primarily due to insufficient evidence of final agreements among alleged conspirators. In this case, however, the DOJ benefited from direct evidence of the alleged agreement, some of which is excerpted below.
The DOJ accused defendant of conspiring with executives from other home health agencies in the Las Vegas area to fix wages for hundreds of home healthcare nurses, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. According to the DOJ, the conspiracy lasted for more than three years, from March 2016 to May 2019. The DOJ offered direct evidence of the alleged agreement to fix nurses’ salaries, including a text message between defendant and his alleged co-conspirators stating “[w]e all have a mutual agreement that … all 3 companies will stay within the same hourly rate.” In another exchange, an alleged co-conspirator texted defendant that they “[had] to play nice with rates,” to which defendant replied, “I’m staying within our agreed rates.”
Before trial, defendant moved to admit evidence of guidance the DOJ and the FTC published on antitrust violations in labor markets in October 2016. In a statement accompanying the guidance, the agencies announced that, “going forward,” the DOJ would criminally investigate no-poach and wage-fixing agreements that are “unrelated or unnecessary to a larger legitimate collaboration between employers.” In his pre-trial motion, defendant contended that the jury should be informed of the guidance and statement, arguing the DOJ “had not considered [the] alleged conduct to be criminal prior to October 2016.” In response, the DOJ countered that its guidance did not, and could not, make any previously legal conduct illegal. The DOJ clarified that the guidance “merely set forth the DOJ’s prosecutorial priorities.” The Court denied defendant’s motion.
After the conviction was returned by the jury, defendant filed a motion for a mistrial, claiming the DOJ’s closing argument improperly relied on a privileged communication and violated defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights by calling attention to his defense counsel switching firms. DOJ has opposed that motion.
After the jury’s verdict, Assistant Attorney General Abigail Slater released a statement reaffirming the Antitrust Division’s commitment to “zealously prosecute those who seek to unjustly profit off their employees.” This case marks the DOJ’s first victory in its efforts to bring criminal antitrust cases for alleged labor market violations. Employers should remain aware that the DOJ will continue to scrutinize labor markets for potential antitrust enforcement.
Links & Downloads
[View source.]
