Johnny Meadows v. Latshaw Drilling Company
866 F.3d 307
| 5th Cir. | 2017Background
- Latshaw Drilling operated ~39 mobile drilling rigs and three yards; rigs function as discrete work sites with crews living on-site in 14‑day hitches and traveling from home to rigs.
- As oil prices fell Latshaw stacked 29 rigs and, over ~6 months, laid off 398 employees (including Meadows) without 60 days’ WARN notice.
- Meadows sued under the WARN Act on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees, alleging Latshaw aggregated rigs (or other locations) into a single "site of employment" triggering WARN notice requirements. He advanced alternative theories including aggregation under DOL regs, the Tulsa HQ as a site, outstationed-employee treatment, and the "truly unusual organizational situation" exception.
- Latshaw moved for summary judgment arguing each rig, each yard, and the corporate office were separate "sites of employment" (each with <50 affected employees), so no plant closing or mass layoff occurred; district court granted summary judgment before ruling on class certification.
- On appeal Meadows challenged (1) the district court’s rejection of aggregation under 20 C.F.R. §639.3(i)(3) (reasonable geographic proximity, same purpose, shared staff/equipment) and (2) the court’s reliance on grounds he says Latshaw did not raise in its summary judgment papers.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Meadows) | Defendant's Argument (Latshaw) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple drilling rigs can be aggregated as a single "site of employment" under 20 C.F.R. §639.3(i)(3) | Rigs operate for same purpose, share employees/equipment and management visits, so they form an inextricable operational connection | Rigs are separate facilities/cost centers scattered across a vast area; no showing that aggregated rigs were in "reasonable geographic proximity" or that 50+ employees lost jobs at an identifiable cluster | Affirmed for Latshaw: Meadows failed to show genuine fact dispute on "reasonable geographic proximity" or identify a grouping with 50+ losses in the relevant period |
| Whether district court improperly decided theories not raised by Latshaw | District court reached alternative theories (plant closing, outstationed employees, unusual organization) without giving Meadows notice/opportunity to brief them | Latshaw’s motion put the single‑site question and regulatory framework at issue; summary judgment on that ground reasonably put Meadows on notice to present all evidence | Affirmed: court did not err—Latshaw’s briefing sufficiently raised the single‑site issue and Meadows had opportunity to conduct discovery |
| Whether failure to defer summary judgment for additional discovery (Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)) was reversible error | Meadows claimed Latshaw withheld location data and he needed more discovery to identify proximate rig groupings | Meadows never filed a Rule 56(d) motion or requested a continuance or specified what discovery was needed or how it would create a triable issue | Affirmed: plaintiff’s failure to request relief under Rule 56(d) meant the district court properly ruled on summary judgment |
| Whether unbriefed alternative WARN theories (outstationed employees; "truly unusual") survive on appeal | Meadows argued he could have presented evidence if given notice and that unusual organization merits consideration | Meadows failed to develop or brief these theories on appeal | Affirmed: unbriefed/undeveloped theories waived; court need not address them |
Key Cases Cited
- Viator v. Delchamps Inc., 109 F.3d 1124 (5th Cir. 1997) (summarizes DOL regulation allowing aggregation of geographically separate sites only with inextricable operational connection)
- Davis v. Signal Int’l Tex. GP, L.L.C., 728 F.3d 482 (5th Cir. 2013) (regulatory guidance: separate facilities are separate sites; narrow aggregation exception requires shared purpose, staff, equipment)
- Williams v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 23 F.3d 930 (5th Cir. 1994) (two plants ‘‘across town’’ rarely constitute a single site)
- In re La. Crawfish Producers, 852 F.3d 456 (5th Cir. 2017) (summary judgment burden discussion where nonmovant bears proof at trial)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standards and burden shifting)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (reasonable inferences and need for affirmative evidence to defeat summary judgment)