Weekes-Walker v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., 877 F. Supp. 2d 1192

Background

This Rule 23(b)(3) WARN class action sui sponte against Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc. (MCGP) by former employees alleging three WARN incidents in 2010.
MCGP laid off 68 employees on January 5, 2010 due to renovations, without WARN notices, claiming anticipated temporary nature.
On February 4, 2010, MCGP conducted a temporary shutdown, re-opened later, and 249 full-time employees suffered an employment loss; no WARN notices were sent to affected employees.
After a January–February clash with Alabama Task Force and court battles, MCGP closed again on August 9, 2010, with no WARN notices provided.
The parties stipulated MCGP is an employer and that the February and August 2010 closings included a temporary shutdown and plant closing, respectively; January 2010 layoff was not by itself a WARN-qualifying event.
The court granted partial summary judgment for liability on the aggregated February and August 2010 closings, denied summary judgment on MCGP’s defenses, and certified an interlocutory appeal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are the February 4 and August 9 closings WARN plant closings?	Aggregation of closings supports liability.	Duration and separate incidents may preclude plant-closure status; timeline contested.	Yes; both are plant closings under WARN and can be aggregated for liability.
Was the January 5, 2010 layoff a covered WARN event on its own?	January layoff contributes to aggregate liability when combined with later closings.	January layoff alone falls below thresholds and is not a covered event.	Not a covered event by itself; may be aggregated with February closing to reach threshold.
Can the January 2010 layoff be aggregated with the February 2010 plant closing?	30-day window and 60-day notice requirement require aggregation.	Statutory time counting is ambiguous; aggregation may be improper.	Aggregation permitted; 30-day period counted under Rule 6(a) exclusive method; February 4 closing aggregated with January 5 layoff.
Whether MCGP may invoke the unforeseeable business circumstances defense (2102(b)(2))?	All three closings were unforeseen and require shortened notice.	Defendant can rely on unforeseeable defense with proper notice and brief statement.	Defense barred; § 2102(b)(3) notice requirement not satisfied; cannot rely on this defense.
Whether MCGP may rely on the good faith defense to reduce liability?	Lack of good-faith notice undermines reduction; plaintiff should not bear burden to prove burden.	If proven, good faith could reduce damages.	Court will not grant summary judgment on good faith defense; may be revisited at damages stage.

Key Cases Cited

Pena v. American Meat Packing Corp., 258 F.Supp.2d 864 (N.D. Ill. 2003) (notice must include a brief basis for reducing the period under § 2102(b)(3))
Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord, 937 F.Supp.255 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (brief statement requirement under § 2102(b)(3) is strict)
Alarcon v. Keller Indus., Inc., 27 F.3d 386 (9th Cir. 1994) (unforeseeable defense requires proper notice and brief justification)
Hotel Emps. Local 54 v. Elsinore Shore Assoc., 173 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 1999) (WARN context and purpose; notice timing importance)