Day v. Celadon Trucking Services Inc, 4:09-cv-00031

Background

Plaintiffs sue Celadon under the WARN Act for alleged failure to provide 60-day notices after Celadon purchased Continental Express’s trucking business on December 4, 2008.
The court previously certified a class of Continental’s Little Rock employees terminated after the sale and found liability for 449 class members who suffered an employment loss without notice.
The sale-of-business provision of WARN makes the seller liable for notices up to the sale date and the purchaser liable after the sale; Celadon purchased Continental as a going concern.
Judge Young identified 75 administrative/non-driver class members (Exhibit A) and found all except Angela Berry belonged in the class; James Dunbar’s inclusion was ultimately upheld on reconsideration.
Celadon sought discovery and attempted decertification; the court denied those motions and restricted reconsideration, keeping liability intact and moving to damages.
Damages phase remains, with the court declining a jury trial and ordering proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law due by late July–August 2014.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 449 class members suffered WARN Act employment loss	449 employees suffered mass layoff without 60-day notice.	Dispute over who qualifies as Continental employees and whether notices were required for those individuals.	Liability established for 449 members; notices were not provided.
Whether Angela Berry should be excluded and James Dunbar included in the class	Berry excluded; Dunbar should be included.	Berry and Dunbar status contested based on schedules and hiring evidence.	Berry excluded; Dunbar included.
Whether drivers listed on Schedule 5.2 who were hired or offered employment should be excluded	Some Schedule 5.2 'yes' entries indicate Celadon offered/hired; those drivers should remain in the class.	Drivers hired or offered employment should be excluded from the class.	Celadon failed to prove exclusions; most Schedule 5.2 drivers remain in the class.
Whether independent-contractor drivers or ATS/Northstar workers are outside the class	Celadon bears burden to prove contractor status; these workers may still be class members.	These workers are not employees and thus not in the class.	Celadon failed to show specific members were independent contractors or ATS/Northstar employees; they remain eligible.
Whether Comcast v. Behrend precludes class certification in this damages context	Damages model supports class-wide relief under WARN Act.	Damages require individual inquiries; class should be decertified.	No decertification; WARN damages are restitutionary and not requiring uniform damages model.

Key Cases Cited

Color Tile Co. v. Cooper & Lybrand, LLP, 322 F.3d 147 (2d Cir. 2003) (color tile approach to reconsideration limits new evidence)
Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (Supreme Court 1987) (two-prong test for jury trial entitlement in statutory actions)
Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (Supreme Court 1990) (legal/equitable nature in jury trial determinations)
Bledsoe v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc., 635 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 2011) (WARN Act backpay is restitutionary; no jury trial right)
Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (Supreme Court 1975) (equitable nature of remedies linked to discretion in damages)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013) (damages model must be congruent with liability theory; class certification standards)