Veterinary Interns Accuse Hiring System of Rigged Wages

Case Overview: A class action alleges that organizations in veterinary medicine conspired to rig the job market for interns and residents, fixing wages and restricting competition through a centralized matching program.

Who's Affected: U.S. individuals employed as veterinary interns or residents via the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program (VIRMP) since April 2, 2021.

Court: U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia Roanoke Division

A new lawsuit is putting some of the most powerful names in veterinary medicine under scrutiny, alleging they’ve conspired to rig the job market for veterinary interns and residents. The lawsuit, filed by two former veterinary interns, accuses a wide-ranging network of animal hospitals, universities, and veterinary associations of violating antitrust law by fixing wages and restricting competition in how early-career vets are hired.

At the center of the alleged scheme is the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program, or VIRMP—a centralized system that interns and residents must use to apply for positions. But according to the lawsuit, what’s billed as a matching service is actually a coordinated effort to suppress wages and limit mobility for veterinary grads looking to launch their careers.

Veterinary Interns Claim They Are Trapped in Low Paying Jobs

The lawsuit was brought by Riley Amore and Caroline Parker, who each worked as veterinary interns after graduating from vet school. Both landed jobs through the VIRMP and earned between $30,000 and $50,000 annually—well below what they say they could’ve negotiated in a competitive job market. Amore worked at two different institutions in Texas and Virginia, while Parker completed her internship at a facility in Texas.

Because of the VIRMP’s binding rules, once they were matched with employers, they had no ability to renegotiate salary or switch to better offers. The plaintiffs argue that the system gave employers unchecked power to lock in interns and residents at depressed wages with no room for discussion.

Matching Program Allegedly Suppresses Wages, Blocks Competition

The lawsuit details a sprawling system run by the American Association of Veterinary Clinicians and powered by a software provider called Solution Innovations. Employers and applicants both submit ranked preferences, which are then processed by a proprietary algorithm to create “matches.” Once a match is made, both parties are contractually required to proceed with employment—no negotiations, no second chances.

The plaintiffs say this setup prevents employers from competing for talent, which is required under the Sherman Antitrust Act. In addition to enforcing strict rules that block outside offers, the suit alleges that employers in the VIRMP regularly share detailed salary data, allowing them to collectively keep compensation low and consistent. 

That exchange of sensitive pay info, the complaint argues, discourages any employer from raising wages above the norm because their competitors will know and adjust.

These practices, according to the lawsuit, have created a rigged labor market where veterinary interns and residents are effectively stuck in underpaid, inflexible roles as they try to build their careers.

Legal Action Part of Broader Antitrust Challenges in Labor Markets

The veterinary world isn’t the only industry under fire for alleged labor market collusion. Earlier this year, twelve professional tennis players sued the sport’s governing bodies—accusing them of forming a cartel to suppress player pay and block rival tournaments. And in academia, a UCLA neuroscientist is taking on top scientific publishers for allegedly forcing researchers to work without pay while driving up journal prices.

In their lawsuit against the companies, Amore and Parker want to represent anyone in the US who was employed as a veterinary intern or resident at any time since April 2, 2021 who got employment through the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program. They are suing for violations of the Sherman Act and seeking damages, interest, fees, and costs.

Case Details

• Lawsuit: Amore, et al. v. American Association of Veterinary Clinicians, et al.
• Case Number: 7:25-cv-00229-EKD-CKM 
• Court: U.S. District Court Western District of Virginia Roanoke Division 

Plaintiffs' Attorneys

• Roman Lifson and David B. Lacy (Christian & Barton, LLP)
• Frank S. Hedin, Julie Holt, and Tyler K. Somes (Hedin LLP)
• Matthew J. Perez and Patrick McGahan (Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP)

Are you a veterinary intern or resident? Share your thoughts on this alleged rigged system below.