Skip to main content

WARN Act Notice Requirements Triggered When Layoffs Become Probable, NOT Just Possible


Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc. - Third Circuit Court of Appeals


Facts:  Annette Varela and John Dimura ("Appellants"), on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated employees, worked for Eclipse Aviation Corporation ("Eclipse") and were laid off after Eclipse suddenly closed its doors in February 2009.  Based upon the voluminous facts in the record, this shutdown was unexpected because after Eclipse declared bankruptcy in November 2008, it reached an agreement to sell the company to its largest shareholder, European Technology and Investment Research Center ("ETIRC").  If that agreement had been completed, it would have allowed Eclipse to continue operating.  However, the sale was contingent upon funding from Vnesheconomban ("VEB"), which never materialized, although there was much back and forth between VEB and Eclipse in which VEB repeatedly indicated the funding would come through.  As a result of VEB not providing the requisite funding, Eclipse suddenly closed in early 2009.

Appellants filed a class action and alleged that Eclipse violated the Worker Adjustment and Restraining Notification Act ("WARN Act") by failing to give the required 60 days' notice prior to closure of the company and subsequent layoffs.  The bankruptcy court which was dealing with Eclipse's bankruptcy proceedings granted summary judgment in Eclipse's favor on the lawsuit brought by Appellants.  The district court affirmed the judgment in favor of Eclipse and an appeal was subsequently filed with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Holding:  For those unfamiliar with the particulars of the WARN Act, to ensure laid off workers and their families receive "some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment," the WARN Act requires employers to give 60 days' notice to all affected employees or their representatives prior to a mass layoff or plant closing.  However, there are several exceptions carved out for employers, namely "unforeseeable business circumstances" being the exception at issue in this case.  This exception applies when "the closing or mass layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required."  The employer must establish 1) that the business circumstances that caused the layoff were not reasonably foreseeable and 2) that those circumstances were the cause of the layoff.  In relevant part, however, even if an employer establishes that unforeseeable events prevented it from giving 60 days' notice in advance, the WARN Act still requires employers "give as much notice as is practicable" including, where appropriate, "notice after the fact."

Sufficiency of Notice

In regard to the sufficiency of notice that Eclipse gave, the Court of Appeals held that no deficiency existed.  The information provided to its employees was found to be sufficient to "assist" the employees in "understand[ing] the employer's situation and its reasons for shortening the notice period."

Unforeseeable Business Circumstances

As for the unforeseeable business circumstances exception, Eclipse argued that because ETIRC had agreed to purchase Eclipse (and apparently intended to keep operations running), it was logical to assume Eclipse's employees would have been retained.  In fact, it had been established that Eclipse was negotiating a sale with ETIRC (rather than doing a "naked sale" with another buyer) in part because ETIRC was apparently planning to retain all employees.

Foreseeability

When the Court turned to whether the failure of the sale was reasonably foreseeable before February 24, 2009 (when Eclipse notified its employees of the layoff), it noted that Eclipse had been repeatedly working to ensure the sale went through (and the the necessary funding was obtained) so the employees would not be laid off.  However, after considering how other courts have ruled on the matter, the Court held that the WARN Act was only triggered when the mass layoffs became probable...not just merely possible.  In this instance, the evidence in the record established that Eclipse did everything it seemingly could to prevent the layoffs and it was only until all efforts had been exhausted, the funding was not obtained, and layoffs would have to occur when it sent the February 29, 2009 note to its employees.

Judgment:  The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the granting of summary judgment in favor of Eclipse on the grounds that the employer had lawfully invoked the unforeseeable business circumstances exception of the WARN Act as the WARN Act was triggered when the mass layoff became probable, not when it merely became possible that a layoff would occur.  

The Takeaway:  I wanted to post this case brief a week or so ago but did not think it would be timely.  I mean, afterall, this case dealt with the Eclipse company...and there was just an eclipse this past Monday...see what I did there?

With that being said, I do not often come across many WARN Act cases that jump out at me.   This case, however, posed an interesting question as to when an employer must notify its employees of an impending layoff:  Once the layoff becomes probable or if the "mere" foreseeable possibility of a layoff occurring is sufficient to trigger the WARN Act's notice requirements.  As with many cases, the facts matter and shape the outcome of the case.  This one is no exception.  In this instance, as evidenced by the Court of Appeals walking through the voluminous facts in the record, the mere possibility of a business closing and/or laying off its employees is not enough to trigger the WARN Act's notice requirements.  Instead, a layoff must become probable (more likely than not) to trigger the notice requirements....which in this case occurred, as outlined above.  For those looking for a rather in depth and well researched opinion, this opinion is well worth the read.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Krause

Date:  August 4, 2017

Opinionhttp://hr.cch.com/eld/InreAELiquidation080417.pdf

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per