WARN Act Case Decisions: Update

In Meson v. GATX Technology Services Corporation, 507 F.3d 803 (C.A.4 2007) the court held that an employee's home office was her “single site of employment” for purposes of the WARN Act, affirming a lower court’s summary judgment decision in favor of the employer. The court reasoned that the home office where the sales representative was based, and not the headquarters to which she reported, was her “single site of employment” for purposes of the 50-employee single-site layoff requirement. The court found that WARN Act provisions applicable to “workers whose primary duties require travel from point to point” was intended to apply only to truly mobile workers without regular, fixed place of work.

In New York’s Health and Human Service Employees Union, 1199/SEIU, AFL-CIO v. Grossman, 2007 WL 2907386 (E.D.N.Y. 2007) a U.S. District Court out of New York denied plaintiff-employees’ motion for summary judgment. Abraham Grossman and Chaim Sieger closed a long-term residential adult care site which they owned and operated. Upon closing, at least 80 of the site’s employees began working at a new site owned by the employer.  The question for trial will be whether the 80 employees were transferred to the new site or whether they were independently hired by the new site’s administrator. As a result of the closing, plaintiff-employees lost their seniority, lost health and pension benefits and had to be represented by a new union with a new contract at the new site.