United Steel Workers Local 2660 v. United States Steel Corp.
683 F.3d 882
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Union represents employees at U.S. Steel's Keetac iron ore plant seeking WARN Act damages for a mass layoff.
- U.S. Steel idled Granite City Works and Great Lakes Works in late 2008 amid the financial crisis, leading to Keetac layoffs of 313 workers.
- A WARN Act notice was sent to the Union on December 3, 2008, after plan approval on December 1, 2008.
- Layoffs occurred between December 7 and 21, 2008; most workers were recalled by December 29, 2009.
- District court granted summary judgment for U.S. Steel, finding the unforeseeable business circumstances exception applicable.
- Court reviews de novo whether the exception applies and whether notice given was as practicable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unforeseeable business circumstances applies. | Union argues events were foreseeable; insufficient post-Oct 8 event evidence. | U.S. Steel contends late-November downturn was unforeseeable and justified immediate action. | Yes; the exception applies. |
| Whether the notice given was sufficient under the Act. | Union claims notice was not as practicable and not adequately explained. | U.S. Steel acted promptly and provided a brief, specific basis for the shortened period. | Yes; notice was as practicable and sufficient under the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Loehrer v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 98 F.3d 1056 (8th Cir. 1996) (employer bears burden to prove applicability of exception)
- Gross v. Hale-Halsell Co., 554 F.3d 870 (10th Cir. 2009) (objective test for commercial reasonableness; foreseeability focus)
- Roquet v. Arthur Andersen LLP, 398 F.3d 585 (7th Cir. 2005) (unforeseeable downturn may justify immediate action; not deterred by trying to weather storm)
- Elsinore Shore Assocs. v. Hotel Employees & Rest. Employees Int’l Union Local 54, 173 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 1999) (warns against narrow construction; assess employer's business judgment in context)
- Jurcev v. Cent. Cmty. Hosp., 7 F.3d 618 (7th Cir. 1993) (recognizes evolving application of unforeseeable circumstances doctrine)
- Burnsides v. MJ Optical, Inc., 128 F.3d 700 (8th Cir. 1997) (notice must be as practicable after causal event is known)