Pharmacist pay lawsuit naming Hopkins, Bethesda association tossed

A Maryland federal judge on Wednesday threw out a proposed class-action antitrust lawsuit alleging that early career pharmacists’ wages were suppressed by hospitals nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman ruled that the plaintiffs, who worked as pharmacy residents at hospitals in Delaware, Florida, Hawaii and Indiana, had failed to state a claim against the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which operates the system through which they are hired.

Four former pharmacy residents sued the Bethesda-based AHSP last year, alleging the organization conspired with hospitals to limit the supply of jobs and to keep wages low. Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins Hospital was the only Maryland hospital named as a defendant, though none of the plaintiffs work there.

The ASHP, the Johns Hopkins Hospital and two lawyers for the plaintiffs did not respond to requests for comment.

Residencies are one-year jobs that many pharmacists seek after earning a Doctor of Pharmacy degree, or PharmD. They are prestigious and offer career opportunities unavailable to graduates who don’t complete them. But the pay is typically low — significantly less than most pharmacists’ pay. The plaintiffs said they earned between $47,000 and $54,000 at their residencies.

The residencies are filled through a system in which an algorithm matches candidates’ rankings of their preferred workplaces and hospitals’ rankings of their preferred candidates. The match is binding on both parties; the hospital must hire the candidate, and the candidate must take the job. Hospitals’ accreditation with ASHP is contingent on their participation in the system.

The plaintiffs argued the system prevents them from transferring to other workplaces, negotiating working conditions or applying for residencies outside a certain time frame, and illegally restricts the supply of residencies.

Boardman ruled that the plaintiffs failed to allege an “agreement” among the hospitals and ASHP, and did not allege an “unreasonable restraint of trade.” She also wrote that it was unclear why the plaintiffs chose to sue only 17 employers of pharmacy residents when there are more than 2,200 accredited residency programs.

She was not convinced by the plaintiffs’ allegation that officials from “one or more” hospitals attended events held by ASHP as part of the wage-suppression conspiracy.

“This is far too vague,” Boardman wrote. “Is it one, or is it more? Which employer defendants attend which events? Are any events attended by all employer defendants? The complaint does not say. From the current allegations, the Court cannot plausibly infer that the employer defendants had the means and opportunity to conspire at ASHP-sponsored events.”

But Boardman dismissed the case without prejudice, setting a Sept. 11 deadline for the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.

“The plaintiffs may not be able to cure the pleading deficiencies the Court has identified,” she wrote, “but they will be given an opportunity to try.”