Davis v. Signal International Texas GP, L.L.C
728 F.3d 482
| 5th Cir. | 2013Background
- Signal International operated two nearby Orange, Texas facilities: a large fabrication yard and a separate administration building (the annex) ~1 mile apart; many administrative staff and shared support personnel worked across both sites.
- From July–September 2009 Signal permanently laid off 159 full‑time workers without issuing WARN Act notice; plaintiffs sued under the WARN Act.
- District court found the two facilities constituted a single "site of employment" under the DOL regulation's "truly unusual organizational situations" exception and used July 24, 2009 (day before first layoff) as the employment "snapshot."
- The court concluded there was a mass layoff (meeting the WARN threshold) during the 90‑day period following July 24 and entered judgment for plaintiffs.
- Signal appealed, arguing (1) the two facilities should be treated as separate sites and (2) May 25, 2009 (60 days before the first layoff) was the proper snapshot date.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the two Orange facilities constitute a "single site of employment" under the WARN Act regulation's "truly unusual organizational situations" exception | The facilities functioned as one integrated operation with regular staff sharing and common day‑to‑day management, so they form a single site | The facilities are noncontiguous and serve different operational purposes and thus should be separate sites | Affirmed single site: regular sharing of staff, integrated operations, close proximity (~1 mile) satisfy the "truly unusual" exception |
| Proper "snapshot" date for counting employees to determine WARN coverage | Use the date immediately preceding the first layoff (July 24, 2009) as allowed by the WARN preamble and regulations when the ordinary snapshot is unavailable or unrepresentative | May 25, 2009 (60 days before first layoff) is the required snapshot under 20 C.F.R. §639.5(a)(2) and should control | Affirmed July 24, 2009: district court permissibly used alternative snapshot because May 25 data were unavailable/unrepresentative and regulation allows alternative dates in unusual circumstances |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenters Dist. Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 15 F.3d 1275 (5th Cir. 1994) (prior Fifth Circuit interpretation of "unusual organizational situations" in WARN context)
- Viator v. Delchamps Inc., 109 F.3d 1124 (5th Cir. 1997) (DOL regulations guide what constitutes a single site; separate facilities are generally separate sites)
- Teemac v. Henderson, 298 F.3d 452 (5th Cir. 2002) (standard of review for WARN/regulatory interpretation issues)
- Teamsters Local Union 413 v. Driver’s, Inc., 101 F.3d 1107 (6th Cir. 1996) (geographic proximity and concentration of job loss relevant to single‑site analysis)
- Rifkin v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 78 F.3d 1277 (8th Cir. 1996) (noncontiguous sites require a connection beyond common ownership to be a single site)