Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, REMEDIES, DAMAGES—D. Conn.: Settlements totaling $60.5 million of aerospace engineers' no-poach lawsuit given final court approval, (May 20, 2025)

By Kenneth H. Ryesky, M.B.A., J.D.

Class action lawsuit was brought amidst criminal indictments brought by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division following extensive investigation of mutual non-hiring agreements in various industries.

The federal district court in Hartford, Connecticut has approved the class action settlements by a large aircraft engine manufacturer and five of its subcontractors of a lawsuit alleging illegal no poaching agreements which were alleged to suppress the compensation paid to aerospace engineers. The court found the settlements to be fair, reasonable, and adequate, providing for payments totaling $60,500,000, in exchange for dismissal of the litigation with prejudice and standard releases. In a separate order issued the same day, the court approved the attorney fees, expenses, and service awards as requested by counsel (Borozny v. RTX Corp., Pratt &Whitney Division, No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn. May 14, 2024)).

Background. The numerous mergers and consolidations that have occurred throughout the long history of the American aerospace industry have resulted in industry conglomerates, a major one of them being Raytheon Technologies Corp., which renamed itself to RTX Corporation in 2023. One of RTX's business units is aircraft engine manufacturer Pratt & Whitney (P&W), whose 2024 revenue was approximately $28 billion. For its part, P&W outsources parts and services to outside vendors.

In 2021, the Justice Department criminally charged a P&W manager and individuals of authority in five of P&W's outsourcing vendors (collectively, the Managers) with "agreeing to restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled-labor employees between and among" their respective companies [United States v. Patel, No. 3:21-cr-00220 (D. Conn., December 15, 2021)]. P&W's outsource vendors there were Agilis Engineering, Inc. (Agilis); Belcan Engineering Group, LLC (Belcan); Cyient Inc. (Cyient); Parametric Solutions, Inc. (PSI); QuEST Global Services NA, Inc. (QuEST).

Contemporaneously with the criminal indictment (which ultimately resulted in acquittal of all defendants of the criminal offenses charged), a putative class action civil lawsuit alleging "no-poach" agreements regarding aerospace engineers was filed against P&W, Agilis, Belcan, Cyient, QuEST, and PSI (collectively, the outsource vendors); the lawsuit also named the Managers as individual defendants. The lawsuit alleged per se violations of the Sherman Act.

From January to May 2024, P&W's five named outsource vendors each reached settlement agreements whereby each would contribute a designated dollar amount into a settlement fund (PSI, in bankruptcy at the time of its settlement, contributed no funds but agreed to additional discovery and other cooperation with respect to future litigation). With P&W's settlement on December 5, 2024, the settlement fund amounted to $60.5 million. The settlements were preliminarily approved on January 3, 2025; final approval was granted on May 14, 2025.

Settlement class. The certified settlement class included all "aerospace engineers and other skilled workers in the jet propulsion systems industry" who were employed by P&W or its outsource vendors at any time during the January 1, 2011 through January 3, 2025 period. Twelve individuals who had opted out of the class action were specifically excluded, as were individuals employed by P&W or the outsource vendors who were (1) senior officers or directors; or (2) human resources personnel.

The court determined that the class was "so numerous and geographically dispersed that joinder of all members is impracticable."

There were common class-wide questions of law or fact. These pertained to (1) the identity of the conspiracy participants; (2) the conspiratorial acts and their duration; (3) the injuries caused by the conspiracy; (4) concealment of the conspiracy; and (5) the appropriate relief for the class.

Settlement implementation. The judge determined a class action to be "superior to other available methods" in resolving the case, and would best promote judicial economy. The notice given to the class members was the best practicable and reasonably apprised the class members of the settlements and how their rights would be affected by it. The allocation plan was approved, and A.B. Data, Ltd., previously appointed as Claims Administrator, was directed to make distributions from the settlement fund accordingly. The court directed the settlement implementation to begin forthwith.

The Case is No. 3:21-cv-01657-SVN.

Judge: Nagala, S.

Attorneys: Amanda Maria DeMatteis (Garrison, Levin-Epstein, Fitzgerald & Pirrotti, P.C.) for Tarah Kye Borozny. Amy Pauli (Crowell & Moring LLP) for RTX Corp. Pratt & Whitney Division.

Companies: RTX Corp. Pratt & Whitney Division

Cases: RemediesDamages ClassActions ContractClaims ConnecticutNews