McDonald’s arguments were limited because of past decision in Deslandes. In Deslandes, the court held that the plaintiff employees plausibly alleged that the franchises’ no-poach restraints could be found unlawful under a quick-look analysis so McDonald’s did not move to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Northern District court rejected McDonald’s argument that the lead plaintiff lacked standing because she was never denied a job based on the no-poach policy. The Northern District’s opinion stated that “[t]he argument misses the point of plaintiff’s alleged injury: Plaintiff alleges she suffered depressed wages.” The court added that “[p]laintiff’s claim is akin to a supplier who sells at a reduced price due to the anti-competitive behavior of a cartel of buyers.” The court also found that complaint sufficiently supported the claim that the policy’s effects could be isolated from broader economic conditions like the unemployment rate. The court added that “[p]laintiff’s causation allegations are plausible due to basic principles of economics.” Indeed, “[i]f fewer employers compete for the same number of employees, wages will be lower than if a greater number of employers are competing for those employees.” So, the case will move forward.Andre Barlow (202) 589-1838 abarlow@dbmlawgroup.com