Darriest Likes v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
787 F.3d 1096
| 11th Cir. | 2015Background
- Darriest Likes worked for Wood Airfreight, a contractor operating out of DHL’s Birmingham delivery facility; Wood received all its business from DHL and laid Likes off in December 2008.
- DHL had contracted with three separate companies (Wood Airfreight, Sky Land Express, Territory Reps) that operated from the same Birmingham facility but each ran separate hiring, payroll, personnel policies, and delivery territories.
- DHL phased out its U.S. domestic delivery network in 2008 and entered Termination and Transition Agreements with contractors; DHL did not provide 60 days’ WARN notice.
- Likes sued, alleging WARN Act violations (failure to give 60 days’ notice); district court denied class certification and granted summary judgment to DHL.
- The district court assumed, without deciding, that DHL could be Likes’s employer for WARN purposes but held Likes failed to show a “single site of employment” where 50 or more employees were laid off.
- On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, concluding the contractors were distinct single sites of employment and therefore layoffs could not be aggregated to meet the WARN threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DHL is an "employer" under WARN (joint employer) | DHL was Likes’s joint employer under DOL joint-employer factors, so its employee count qualifies for WARN | DHL contends prior FLSA decision (and res judicata/collateral estoppel arguments) and that contractors were independent so DHL not joint employer | Court assumed DHL could be employer but did not decide estoppel; resolved appeal on different ground (see below) |
| Whether layoffs across three contractors at the Birmingham facility constitute a single site of employment for aggregation | Layoffs from all three contractors at the common facility should be aggregated to reach 50-employee WARN threshold | Contractors operated independently with separate management, payroll, and workforces; cannot be aggregated | Held they were separate single sites; aggregation not permitted, so WARN threshold not met |
| Whether summary judgment was proper on WARN claim | Likes argued disputed facts existed about site aggregation and employer status precluding summary judgment | DHL argued no genuine dispute: fewer than 50 employees per contractor and no operational unity | Held summary judgment affirmed because no evidence a reasonable jury could find the Birmingham facility was a single site of employment |
| Whether denial of class certification affected disposition | (Argued) class certification denial should be reviewed/alter outcome | DHL relied on merits ruling making class certification irrelevant | Court did not decide class-cert denial because merits disposition made it unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- Airtran Airways, Inc. v. Elem, 767 F.3d 1192 (11th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment — genuine dispute and probative evidence standards)
- International Union, United Mine Workers v. Jim Walter Res., 6 F.3d 722 (11th Cir. 1993) (interpretation of single site of employment and focus on day-to-day management/operational connection)
- I.A. Durbin, Inc. v. Jefferson Nat’l Bank, 793 F.2d 1541 (11th Cir. 1986) (elements for res judicata)