David Granata, a US-based former project worker for QuEST Global Services, is charging Raytheon subsidiary Pratt & Whitney and several other aerospace businesses with enforcing an agreement to not hire workers in the industry to keep down wages. His lawyers - from the Milford firm of Hurwitz, Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff, and the New York firm of Labaton Sucharow - are seeking court approval to pursue the suit as a class action. They want to represent virtually all employees affected by what they allege was a “no poach” agreement among Pratt and its engineering subcontractors to avoid offering competitive pay and benefits to engineers and other skilled employees from 2011 to 2019.

Granata, of Cranston, Rhode Island, said in his lawsuit that he was an employee of an East Hartford project engineering company from 2013 to 2018 and primarily performed work for Pratt & Whitney. He said the jet engine manufacturer and other employers enforced a deal to not hire former employees from as early as 2011 and extending to 2019.

In addition to Pratt & Whitney, the lawsuit also accuses QuEST Global Services-NA, Inc., East Hartford, Belcan Engineering Group, LLC, Belcan Engineering Group Limited Partnership, both of East Hartford, Cyient Inc., the East Hartford subsidiary of a company based in Hyderabad, India, Parametric Solutions Inc., Jupiter, Florida, Agilis Engineering, Inc., Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, Mahish Patel of Glastonbury, Robert Harvey of Farmington, Harpreet Wasan of South Glastonbury, Thomas Edwards of New Fairfield, Conn., Gary Prus of Jupiter, Florida, Frank O’Neill of Jupiter, Florida, and three “John Does.”

Federal investigation is underway

Patel, a former Pratt former director of global outsourcing services from Glastonbury, CT, was arrested last week on a federal antitrust charge, accused of conspiring with suppliers to restrict the hiring and recruiting of engineers and other skilled workers to suppress wages.. He was later released on a $100,000 bond. Patel was arrested under allegations in a federal agent’s criminal complaint against him. A major difference is between the criminal complaints, and Granata's civil suit, is that the suit names all the companies and most of the individuals it accuses of wrongdoing. The criminal complaint identifies only Patel, referring to others accused of involvement in the conspiracy by letters or numbers.

According to the affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint, Patel upheld a conspiracy among aerospace companies not to hire or recruit one another’s employees. At times, Patel confronted and berated Suppliers who cheated on the agreement, often at the direct behest of another supplier, and threatened to punish nonconforming suppliers by taking away valuable access to projects. In addition, as the complaint alleges, Patel and co-conspirators recognized the mutual financial benefit of this agreement - namely, reducing the rise in labor costs that would occur when aerospace workers were free to find new employment in a competitive environment.

“Given the significance of major defense and aerospace companies to Connecticut’s economy, it is vital that the labor market in this industry remain fair, open and competitive to our workers,” said Peter S. Jongbloed, Counsel to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Connecticut. “No one should be illegally denied the opportunity to pursue better jobs, higher pay and greater benefits."

Anti-poaching agreements among competitors have always been unlawful under federal antitrust laws. Such illegal agreements, or agreements to fix wages, stamp out competition just like agreements to fix product prices. The lawsuit clams that the defendants’ action in this case was “an ideal tool to suppress their employees’ compensation that was simple to implement and easy to enforce."

“As a result of Defendants’ no-poach agreement, Mr. Granata earned less than he would have absent the alleged agreement,” the lawsuit says. “Further, because of Defendants’ unlawful agreement, he was also denied access to better, higher-paying job opportunities and his ability to change employment was restricted.”

A spokesman for Raytheon Technologies Corp., the parent company of Pratt & Whitney, said the aerospace and defense conglomerate would not comment.