Judy Weekes-Walker v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc.
725 F.3d 1276
11th Cir.2013Background
- MCGP is a single site of employment subject to WARN Act; three layoff events occurred in 2010 due to Task Force crackdown on electronic gaming.
- January 5, 2010 layoff of 68 employees was described as temporary and not, by itself, a WARN Act plant closing or mass layoff.
- February 4, 2010 layoff involved 249 employees and was treated as a plant closing by the district court; January and February were previously aggregated for liability purposes.
- August 9, 2010 layoff/closing also qualified as a plant closing; no WARN notice was provided for February or August events.
- District court granted summary judgment for appellees on liability; court aggregated Jan-Feb and held not entitled to unforeseeable business circumstances defense due to lack of notice.
- On appeal, court reverses in part, remands on January as to whether those January employees were “affected employees” entitled to notice, and affirms February and August as plant closings and the defense denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether January and February layoffs can be aggregated | January layoff not covered; aggregation with February improper. | February plant closing can be aggregated with January for WARN purposes. | Aggregation improper; January cannot be counted with February as plant closing or mass layoff. |
| Whether February plant closing qualifies as a plant closing and January layoff as a separate incident | Two events may form a single closing or mass layoff under WARN. | February closing stands as a plant closing; January cannot be aggregated to create a closing. | February is a plant closing; January remains separate and not automatically a closing. |
| Whether January employees were ‘affected employees’ entitled to notice of February closing | January layoffs may trigger notice for February if they were expected to last beyond 6 months. | Resolution depends on whether January layoff was expected to last over 6 months from January date. | Remand to determine if January layoffs were expected to last >6 months; affected-employee status undecided. |
| Whether August layoff/closing is a plant closing | August event should be considered for WARN notice. | August is a plant closing. | Affirmed as plant closing for August. |
| Whether unforeseeable business circumstances defense can be invoked without any notice | Employer may rely on defense even without notice if circumstances unforeseeable. | Defense requires at least some notice and a brief statement of basis for reducing notice. | Cannot invoke defense without notice; notice requirements remain applicable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642 (10th Cir. 2006) (three elements of WARN Act claim)
- Int’l Union, United Mine Workers v. Jim Walter Res., Inc., 6 F.3d 722 (11th Cir. 1993) (single site of employment and aggregation context)
- Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337 (1997) (statutory interpretation and plain language guidance)
- Carpeters Dist. Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 15 F.3d 1275 (5th Cir. 1994) (notice reduction requires brief justification)
- Piccadilly Cafeterias, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Revenue, 554 U.S. 33 (2008) (statutory titles can aid interpretation)