Nuclear Power Companies Win Dismissal of Worker Wage-Fixing Lawsuit

A federal judge in Maryland has dismissed a proposed class action accusing major nuclear power companies of using shared compensation data to suppress worker pay, finding that the workers did not plausibly allege an agreement to fix wages and brought their claims outside the federal antitrust deadline.

The lawsuit sought to represent thousands of hourly and salaried employees who worked at nuclear power facilities across the United States beginning in 2003. Three workers accused dozens of plant operators and a consulting firm of taking part in an industrywide system that allegedly reduced competition for employees.

Companies named in the litigation include Constellation Energy, Duke Energy and other major nuclear power operators. The workers claimed the companies shared wage information, planned pay increases, collective bargaining agreements and other compensation data through industry reports, meetings and direct communications.

According to the amended complaint, some of the exchanged material included company and plant-level compensation information, along with proposed wage increases covering future years. The workers argued that access to those details allowed plant operators to align their pay decisions and avoid offering higher compensation to attract or retain employees.

U.S. District Judge Adam Abelson found that the allegations did not show a common agreement over what workers would be paid. The complaint did not identify an agreed salary level, wage range, cap on raises or another shared limit on compensation, he wrote in the August 5 ruling.

Similar wage increases at several plants also did not establish a conspiracy, according to the court. Abelson said the allegations described companies exchanging information and then making their own compensation decisions, rather than acting under a joint commitment to suppress pay.

Federal antitrust law applies to competition for workers as well as competition for customers. Employers that compete for the same employees generally may not agree to set, reduce or cap wages. A proven wage-fixing agreement can be treated as automatically unlawful because it prevents workers from benefiting from competition among employers.

Compensation benchmarking is not automatically illegal. Businesses may review industry pay information when making hiring, budgeting, and retention decisions. Antitrust concerns can arise when competitors exchange current or future company-specific data in a way that limits independent decision-making or supports an agreement over compensation.

The workers relied on two related theories under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. One alleged a direct wage-fixing conspiracy. The other claimed the exchange of sensitive compensation information harmed competition in the labor market, even without an express agreement setting pay.

Courts review those theories differently. Wage-fixing agreements can be treated as unlawful without a detailed study of their market effects. Information-sharing claims are generally reviewed under the rule of reason, which examines the type of data exchanged, the structure of the market, and whether the conduct reduced competition.

Abelson rejected the wage-fixing theory because the complaint did not plausibly allege an agreement. He did not decide whether the information exchanges were lawful or whether they could have harmed competition.

The judge dismissed the information-sharing claim because the named workers had not shown that their own alleged injuries occurred within the period allowed under federal law.

Private antitrust claims generally must be filed within four years after they arise. The lawsuit was filed on July 11, 2025, making July 11, 2021, the relevant cutoff unless the workers could establish a legal basis for extending the deadline.

Although the complaint described conduct that allegedly continued into recent years, none of the named workers stated that they had worked for one of the companies during the four-year period, the ruling said. Possible injuries suffered by other members of the proposed class could not make the named workers’ claims timely.

Lawyers for the workers argued that the alleged conspiracy continued within the filing period and had been concealed through private meetings, protected databases and separate human resources operations. Abelson found that the complaint did not identify a new injury to a named worker after July 11, 2021, or enough facts to show deliberate concealment that would pause the deadline.

The nuclear operators denied wrongdoing and argued that the complaint described lawful compensation research, not an agreement among competitors. They also called the alleged conspiracy implausible within the heavily regulated nuclear power industry.

NextEra Energy, NextEra Energy Resources and Florida Power & Light agreed in May to pay $9.5 million to settle the claims against them. The companies denied wrongdoing, and their settlement was separate from the dismissal obtained by the remaining operators.

Abelson dismissed the information-sharing claim against the Tennessee Valley Authority with prejudice, finding that federal law requires the agency to consider private-industry compensation when setting employee pay.

All other claims were dismissed without prejudice, and the judge gave the workers 45 days from the August 5 ruling to seek permission to file another amended complaint.