*1 gym supposed he at a when was duty. The court sustained Bat objections, relevancy his tles’s denied mo mistrial, jury
tions for a admonished disregard testimony concerning discharge, ultimately
reason for but Battles’s testimony
found admissible that he had been employment applica
fired had lied addition,
tions. the district court ordered testimony
stricken that Battles did not dis department
close he an account with a
store he work applied there. We any prejudice
believe associated with this light strength
evidence minimal in evidence,
of the admitted see Unit ed, Abrams, (8th v.
Cir.1997), and such it could not limiting
be cured the district court’s in
struction, Farmer, see United States v. Cir.),
F.3d
518 U.S.
116 S.Ct.
Accordingly, judgment we affirm
district court. 838, Appellant,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL
v. TRANSIT, INC., Appellee.
LAIDLAW
Danny McCONNELL, Jacqueline Lee
McGlothen, Martin, Teresa Barbara Ha
sim, Shirley Williams, Sandy Hamer, Robinson, Burbanks,
Glenn and Leona
Appellants, TRANSIT, INC., Appellee.
LAIDLAW States Court of
Submitted June Sept. 22, 1998.
855 that it employees would notified its Laidlaw (the base City Terminal its Kansas closing City Dis- School Kansas for its operations 5, 1995, service) which trict notice, that the and days after exactly 60 there not be rehired employees would the year. new school start of the the sued, alleging 838 Local Teamsters Adjustment the Worker violated Laidlaw had (WARN MO, Act Retraining Jr., City, Notification Walsh, and Kansas G. James 2101-2109, failing §§ Act), 29 U.S.C. see appellant argued, for 60 employees with provide its seasonal to PA, argued Besnoff, Philadelphia, Larry closing. of an days’ notice Glassman, (Jason J. and Todd E. Reisman sepa- brought a Eight nonunion Singer and PA, Leonard and Philadelphia, action, had violat- alleging Laidlaw rate brief), MO, on the Hess, City, Kansas Sharon provide its to by failing Act the ed WARN appellee. for same notice. employees with the nonseasonal consolidated, the two cases After the and S. ARNOLD Before summary for cross-motions parties filed ARNOLD, Circuit SHEPPARD MORRIS partial granted court The district PANNER,1 Judge. District Judges, and party, ruling judgment to each summary sufficient seasonal the ARNOLD, Circuit SHEPPARD MORRIS nonseasonal the notice but Judge. to reim- Laidlaw ordered The court not. Missouri, City, Kansas the and Laidlaw pe- for the the burse contract entered into District School the with in accordance the violation riod of bus school provide to agreed Laidlaw which Act, 29 see the of WARN damages provisions 1994-1995, 1993-1994, transportation for 2104(a)(1). Although the years. school and 1995-1996 argues 838 Local Teamsters appeal, On three-year period, was for contract determining erred every year, its renegotiated terms parties Act WARN violate did not that Laidlaw 1995, the school and January, and in employees, seasonal to its respect terminating the con- began to discuss district argue that the nonseasonal year. De- school the 1995-1996 tract before awarding them back termi- lack of an official apparent spite workdays, the number basis of pay on the quite to have known nation, Laidlaw seems the relevant days, in than calendar rather re- not be it would year that early in the dis- judgment of affirm period. 1995- for the service provide bus quired trict court.2 1996 school 1995, the school end of at the On drivers off seasonal Laidlaw laid year, requires an The unemploy- summer to obtain helped them “plant clos- notice of days’ written 60 give years, previous benefits. ment represen- employees or ing” to September, those drivers rehired act 29 U.S.C. tatives. See expected to be rehired reasonably permanent closing “the June, how- defines the end of At 1995. September, single site of shutdown board the school Laidlaw learned in an results shutdown ployment, any routes assigned bus had not single site loss at year. On school 1995-1996 for the Gaitan, Jr., United J. Panner, Fernando 2. Honorable M. Owen The Honorable District Judge the Western District sitting Slates Oregon, Judge the District District Missouri. designation. Cir.1997), 30-day period.” Kalwaytis during loss,” An Systems, Meal Preferred — here, (3rd as relevant is “an termi- Cir.1996), U.S. nation, cause, discharge for other than a -, S.Ct. L.Ed.2d *3 voluntary departure, or retirement.” See We therefore find that 2101(a)(6)(A). § employ- “Affected U.S.C. properly granted Laidlaw’s motion for sum may ees” are those “who reason- mary judgment. experience
ably
expected
an
consequence
proposed
loss
of
II.
plant closing
employer.”
their
See
§
U.S.C.
provides
The WARN Act
employees rightly con
The seasonal
plant closing
who orders a
in viola
that,
act, they
employ
under the
were
tend
tion of the act shall be
each
liable to
they
though
of
even
ees
were
employee
pay
day
for “back
viola
each
of
temporary layoff. According
interpre
to an
2104(a)(1)(A).
§
tion.” See
regulation promulgated by
Secretary
tive
eight
contend that
Labor,
temporary layoff
of
“[w]orkers on
using workdays
in
the district
expectation
on leave who have a reasonable
days
compute,
rather than calendar
their
employees.”
of recall are counted as
case, however,
damages. A recent
has fore
639.3(a)(1).
C.F.R.
argument.
closed that
In Breedlove v. Ear
however,
regulation,
This
defines
Inc.,
Baking Companies,
thgrains
140 F.3d
“employee”;
meaning
word
it
not
does
add
Cir.1998),petition
filed,
employee.”
term
“affected
We believe
(U.S.
(No.
6, 1998)
July
been reasons, foregoing For the we affirm the closing.” See 29 judgment of the district court. legally significant also believe that it is layoff eventually converted into a termination plant when the ARNOLD, Judge, S. Circuit time, in September. they closed At that lost part concurring concurring in expectation only the immediate re hired, expectation and loss of the of employ “employment ment is not an loss” under the and, join opinion II I Part the Court’s 2101(a)(6)(A). WARN Act. See 29 U.S.C. addition, agree result reached differs, My Part route to that result how- To the extent that these suf- view, my somewhat. the seasonal anything resembling fered an employees were “affected” an suffer plant they loss as the closing, result loss” when the closed experienced they it in September. days But no- not rehired for the new school For employment loss, one, they closing, tice advance of this it was notice complied Perhaps with the statute. received sufficient notification should, fairness, ployer given because of the from an ear- 7 notice have See, going e.g., warning. to close. lier could have Ranch, Marques v. Telles used the additional time to look for other to have to me Laidlaw seems work. But requires. the statute all
done America, Appellee, STATES
UNITED GILLINGS, Appellant.
Calvin Court 9, 1997. Dec.
Submitted 23, 1998. Sept.