580 F.Supp.3d 349
E.D. La.2022Background:
- Plaintiffs are former employees who allege BD LaPlace (Bayou Steel) closed its mill and related facilities on October 1, 2019 without the 60 days' notice required by the WARN Act.
- Plaintiffs sued Bayou Steel BD Holdings II, LLC and Black Diamond Capital Management, LLC as liable "single employers," seeking back pay and benefits for the WARN notice period.
- Defendants moved to strike Plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial, raising a Seventh Amendment question whether a WARN Act claim entitles plaintiffs to a jury.
- The court applied the Seventh Amendment two-part framework (historical analogues; whether the remedy is legal or equitable) from Tull/Terry and related precedent.
- The court reviewed authority including the Sixth Circuit's Bledsoe decision (holding WARN remedies equitable) and Fifth Circuit analogies treating WARN backpay as restorative/wage-debt in nature.
- The court concluded WARN Act remedies are restitutionary/equitable (not legal) and granted Defendants' motion to strike the jury demand.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plaintiff asserting a WARN Act claim is entitled to a Seventh Amendment jury trial | Plaintiffs argued WARN backpay is compensatory/legal (analogous to traditional backpay/tort/contract remedies) and relied on pre-Bledsoe authority and Terry | Defendants argued WARN relief is restitutionary/equitable (wrongfully withheld wages/benefits), citing Bledsoe and Fifth Circuit analogies; court discretion over relief supports equity | Court held WARN Act remedies are equitable/restitutionary and no jury right exists; motion to strike jury demand granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Curtis v. Loether, 415 U.S. 189 (1974) (statutory causes of action that create legal rights may carry Seventh Amendment jury rights)
- Tull v. United States, 481 U.S. 412 (1987) (two-part Seventh Amendment test: historical analogy and legal-vs-equitable nature of the remedy)
- Chauffeurs, Teamsters & Helpers, Local No. 391 v. Terry, 494 U.S. 558 (1990) (remedy inquiry controls; distinguishes legal backpay from restitutionary equitable relief)
- Bledsoe v. Emery Worldwide Airlines, Inc., 635 F.3d 836 (6th Cir. 2011) (held WARN Act remedies restitutionary/equitable and no jury trial right)
- Carpenters Dist. Council of N.O. v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 15 F.3d 1275 (5th Cir. 1994) (treats WARN "back pay" as restorative and measured in work days)
- Borst v. Chevron Corp., 36 F.3d 1308 (5th Cir. 1994) (recognizes restitutionary backpay claims—wrongfully withheld funds—as equitable)
- Staudt v. Glastron, Inc., 92 F.3d 312 (5th Cir. 1996) (WARN action not neatly analogous to tort or contract; remedial goal comparable to wage debt/restoration)
- Phelps Dodge Corp. v. NLRB, 313 U.S. 177 (1941) (discusses traditional backpay remedy and aim to restore status quo)
- Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405 (1975) (district-court discretion in awarding backpay underscores equitable characteristics)