Messer v. Bristol Compressors International, LLC
1:18-cv-00040
W.D. Va.Jun 20, 2019Background
- Bristol Compressors announced a plant closure on July 31, 2018, and began terminations immediately; the facility ultimately closed around November 16, 2018.
- Plaintiffs (former full‑time employees) sued under the WARN Act, alleging defendants failed to provide 60 days’ notice of the plant closing.
- Bristol offered a $1,000 wind‑down bonus conditioned on signing a Stay Bonus Letter Agreement (SBLA) that waived claims, including WARN Act claims; many terminated employees signed the SBLA.
- Plaintiffs moved to certify a class and proposed two subclasses: (1) initial terminations between July 31–Aug 31, 2018; (2) terminations after Aug 31, 2018. Court later split the latter into two subclasses based on SBLA signature.
- The court granted certification under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), finding numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority satisfied for Subclass One and for the two post‑Aug 31 subclasses (signed SBLA; did not sign SBLA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Numerosity for initial terminations | Joinder impracticable given ~47 members and cost/effort to pursue individually | 47 is small; many already represented so joinder practicable | Numerosity satisfied: joinder impractical given number and small individual recoveries |
| Commonality | Common legal questions (notice, defenses, status of severance as benefit) apply classwide | No contest for Subclass One | Commonality satisfied: common questions central to all claims |
| Predominance (damages) | Damages calculable by formula from employment records; individualized offsets limited | Individualized pay, termination dates, severance, new employment create predominance problems | Predominance satisfied: damages amenable to classwide calculation; individualized offsets manageable |
| Effect of SBLA waivers on post‑Aug 31 claims | SBLA invalidity challenge rests on unconscionability and common inducement (promise of bonus) | Plaintiffs must prove individualized coercion/subjective conditions for 249 signatories | Court accepts plaintiff's counsel statement that unconscionability will be proved on common facts; splits post‑Aug 31 group into two subclasses (signed SBLA; did not sign) and certifies both |
| Superiority | Class action more efficient given small uniform remedies and single ongoing suit | Not argued to defeat superiority | Class action is superior given efficiency and manageability |
Key Cases Cited
- EQT Prod. Co. v. Adair, 764 F.3d 347 (4th Cir. 2014) (Rule 23 requirements and evidentiary showing for certification)
- Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality standard)
- Gen. Tel. Co. of Sw. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147 (1982) (typicality guidance)
- Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (predominance and classwide damages proof)
- Local Joint Exec. Bd. of Culinary/Bartender Tr. Fund v. Las Vegas Sands, Inc., 244 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2001) (WARN Act damages can be computed by formula)
- Windham v. Am. Brands, Inc., 565 F.2d 59 (4th Cir. 1977) (manageability where damages calculations are mechanical)
- Brady v. Thurston Motor Lines, 726 F.2d 136 (4th Cir. 1984) (numerosity examples)