61 F.Supp.3d 592
W.D. Va.2014Background
- This is a WARN Act class action alleging mass layoff without 60 days notice and seeking back wages and benefits for affected employees.
- Plaintiffs, led by Hayward Creech, Jr., sue Virginia Fuel Corporation in the Western District of Virginia.
- Defendant moved to strike the jury demand, arguing no Seventh Amendment jury right in WARN Act cases.
- The court holds the WARN Act does not provide a jury trial right and grants the motion to strike.
- The court analyzes whether WARN remedies are legal or equitable, concluding they are equitable restitution.
- The decision relies on comparing WARN remedies to fiduciary-like restitution and noting district court discretion under § 2104(a)(4).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there a Seventh Amendment jury trial right in WARN Act cases? | Creech argues there is a jury right. | Virginia Fuel contends there is no jury right. | No right to jury trial; remedies are equitable. |
| Are WARN Act remedies legal or equitable in nature? | Remedies are akin to legal damages entitling a jury. | Remedies are restitutionary and equitable. | Remedies are equitable in nature. |
| Does § 2104(a)(4) good-faith discretion affect the nature of the remedy? | Discretion is not dispositive of a jury right issue. | Discretion supports equitable character and liability reduction. | Discretion reinforces equitable nature; supports no jury right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bledsoe v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc., 635 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 2011) (remedies are equitable; fiduciary duty analogy supports restitution)
- Wooddell v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Workers, Local 71, 502 U.S. 93 (U.S. 1991) (distinguishes legal vs. equitable for remedies and evidence)
- Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (U.S. 1975) (discretionary remedies reflect equity in Title VII context)
- Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (U.S. 1978) (discusses equitable vs. legal relief in employment acts)