A sweeping antitrust case that reaches into Dominion Energy's Surry Power Station is suddenly moving fast. Three of the former plant workers who accused major U.S. nuclear operators of coordinating to hold down wages have already reached early resolutions, while Dominion is asking a federal judge to toss the lawsuit outright.
The result is a sharply framed legal brawl over one deceptively simple question: when nuclear employers share pay data and contracts, is that routine industry benchmarking or an illegal wage-fixing conspiracy?
As reported by Smithfield Times, filings show the workers have pared back claims against several defendants through dismissals and settlement notices. Court records compiled on Justia confirm the case was filed in July 2025 and that defendants lodged coordinated motions to dismiss late last year.
One early resolution arrived in mid‑May, when NextEra Energy and its Florida Power & Light unit disclosed a $9.5 million agreement and said they will provide "material cooperation," according to Law360. That deal is the first settlement in a multi‑defendant suit that names dozens of nuclear owners and two consulting firms.
What plaintiffs allege
According to the complaint filed with Courthouse News, the workers say nuclear employers and industry consultants used a password‑protected repository of collective bargaining agreements, along with other data‑sharing tools, to compare pay and coordinate compensation decisions. They contend that practice suppressed wages across the nuclear sector.
The lawsuit brings claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and seeks injunctive relief along with actual, compensatory and treble damages on behalf of current and former nuclear workers nationwide. In plain English, if the workers prove there was an unlawful agreement, the potential damages could be tripled under federal antitrust law.
Dominion's response
In a Dec. 19 omnibus motion available through Hagens Berman, defendants including Dominion Energy asked the court to dismiss the claims. They argue the alleged information exchanges amount to lawful, routine industry benchmarking rather than an illegal conspiracy.
The motion puts it this way: "Plaintiffs’ allegations ... reflect, at most, lawful, procompetitive compensation benchmarking," and the companies say federal guidance and longstanding industry groups support treating these exchanges as standard practice, not a secret wage pact.
What comes next
The NextEra settlement still needs court approval, and plaintiffs' lawyers say they will seek preliminary sign‑off before pressing forward against the remaining defendants, according to Hagens Berman. The litigation remains active before U.S. District Judge Adam B. Abelson, who first has to decide whether the workers' complaint is strong enough to survive the December motions to dismiss.
If the case clears that hurdle, the discovery phase could open up how nuclear operators have handled pay data, contracts and HR coordination for years. If it does not, the entire dispute could end at the pleading stage.
Legal stakes
Under the Sherman Act, the workers seek treble damages and injunctive relief if they prove an unlawful agreement, as outlined in the filing with Courthouse News. Defendants counter in the Dec. 19 motion posted by Hagens Berman that the same conferences, surveys and shared CBA materials are procompetitive, routine and in some instances encouraged by the government. Courts have treated that kind of reasoning as decisive in other benchmarking disputes.
How Judge Abelson rules on those legal thresholds will determine whether this turns into a landmark antitrust action testing the limits of HR data sharing or fades as a dismissed claim about ordinary compensation practices.
For workers and communities around Surry County, the stakes feel more concrete. The case raises a basic question about whether decades‑old HR collaboration masked coordinated restraint of pay or whether the exchanges were necessary industry coordination to keep nuclear plants staffed and safe. Dominion and the other defendants have denied wrongdoing in their filings. With only one settlement public so far, the broader litigation, and the prospect of more deals or decisive rulings, will unfold in the months ahead.
