David Bledsoe v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, 635 F.3d 836

EWA, CNF subsidiary, operated freight from a Dayton, Ohio hub under FAA certification and faced FAA oversight after safety/incidents in 1999–2001.
In Aug 2001, FAA actions prompted EWA to ground its fleet, causing about 575 temporary layoffs from Aug 13–15, 2001.
First communications anticipated recalls within six months if FAA issues were resolved; later communications acknowledged uncertainty and extending timelines.
On Dec 4, 2001 CNF decided to permanently cease EWA operations due to ongoing FAA uncertainty and economic considerations; Dec 5, 2001 layoffs became permanent for remaining staff.
Plaintiffs (named class members) filed WARN Act claims in Feb 2002; district court conditionally certified a class of roughly 575 Vandalia employees, with Hangar A/Webster Street employees excluded.
The district court held the August 2001 layoffs did not constitute an employment loss under WARN and found no WARN liability because plaintiffs lacked a reasonable expectation of recall at closure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Right to jury trial under WARN Act	Pls argued WARN creates legal rights and jury trial is required.	Defs urged no jury right due to equitable nature of WARN remedies.	No Seventh Amendment jury right; WARN remedies are equitable.
Reasonable expectation of recall	Plaintiffs contend they had recall expectation based on FAA engagement and August letters.	EWA argues evolving FAA conditions and letters ended recall expectation.	No reasonable expectation of recall as of Dec 2001 given changed circumstances and letters indicating prolonged or permanent layoffs.
Single site of employment and class scope	All Vandalia employees (and some related facilities) were within single site.	Board excluded Hangar A/Webster Street as non-single-site.	Class limited to Vandalia Hub employees; exclusions affirmed.
Character of WARN remedies (legal vs. equitable)	Remedies seeking back pay/benefits constitute legal damages.	Remedies are equitable restitution for missed pay/benefits.	Remedies are equitable restitution; no jury right.

Wooddell v. Int'l Bhd. of Elec. Wkrs., Local 71, 502 U.S. 93 (1991) (back pay treated as equitable restitution in statutory enforcement)
Terry v. Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers Local No. 391, 494 U.S. 558 (1990) (jury right depends on whether relief is legal or equitable; pre-merger contract analogy rejected)
Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575 (1978) (analysis of creating jury rights in statutory claims; precludes automatic jury trial in many wage-remedy contexts)
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) (discretionary nature of equitable relief; separation from mandatory damages)
Frizzell v. Southwest Motor Freight, 154 F.3d 641 (6th Cir. 1998) (FMLA-like right to jury based on statutory structure; distinguished from WARN on remedies)
McClanahan v. Mathews, 440 F.2d 320 (6th Cir. 1971) (discussion of court discretion over damages in related wage-remedy contexts)