Martin v. AMR Services Corp., 93-CV-4900 (JBW).
Citation | 877 F. Supp. 108 |
Decision Date | 22 February 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 93-CV-4900 (JBW).,93-CV-4900 (JBW). |
Parties | William MARTIN, Joe Velez, Jose Gonzalez, Russell Carpino, and George Johnson, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMR SERVICES CORPORATION, a subsidiary of AMR Corporation, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
Stuart A. Weinberger, Law Offices of Richard M. Greenspan, P.C., Ardsley, NY, for plaintiffs.
Edward A. Brill, Proskauer, Rose, Goetz & Mendelsohn, New York City, for defendants.
Plaintiffs charge that defendant AMR Services Corp. ("AMR") failed to comply with the notice requirements of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN"), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., when it closed its Security Department at New York's John F. Kennedy Airport in the Spring of 1993. All relevant evidence has been produced by discovery or adequate affidavits and concessions in argument or in briefs.
AMR moves for summary judgment, contending that since fewer than 50 employees suffered an "employment loss" as defined by WARN, that statute's notice requirement were not triggered and therefore no statutory violation occurred. Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment. At issue is whether AMR's actions with respect to 18 employees placed in other jobs at AMR shortly after they were told their department had been eliminated suffered an employment loss as defined by WARN. Since these employees did not lose their employment, AMR's motion for summary judgment is granted and plaintiffs' cross motion is denied.
AMR is an aviation ground services company whose operations include freight distribution and servicing, baggage handling, aircraft parts distribution, and other services for the airline industry. In May 1993, AMR decided to close its Security Department at JFK Airport and contract-out its functions. At the time, AMR employed 91 people in the security unit, one salaried manager and 90 hourly workers.
The parties agree that AMR is an employer as defined under WARN, 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a), and is subject to its provisions. In addition to the rights that employees may have under WARN, AMR employees have additional rights under AMR's internal employment regulations, specifically AMR's "Reduction in Force/Recall" manual ("RIF Regulations").
Under the RIF Regulations, "employees may be declared surplus as a result for sic a need for reduction in force in a specific work unit." A subsection of the RIF Regulations entitled "Reduction in Force Policy" provides seniority-qualified worker protections common in industry. It states:
Another subsection, entitled "Recall," provides for employment of laid off workers. It reads:
AMR sent letters dated May 21, 1993 to each of the 90 hourly workers stating that they had been "declared surplus" due to the Security Department's elimination. The letters provided that the employees' final day of work would be May 31, 1993, but that they would be paid through Friday, June 4, 1993. A similar letter dated May 3, 1993 advised the department manager that his last day was May 3, 1993 and that he would be paid through May 17, 1993. The letters noted that those employees who were members of the AMR Services Corp. Group Life and Health Benefits Plan "may elect to convert their coverage to an individual policy," and that "solicitation for conversion would be sent under separate cover." Solicitations for conversion were subsequently provided to the 11 employees who were eligible members of the health plan. There is some disagreement between the parties regarding the status and disposition of a number of the employees. AMR contends that the 90 hourly employees should be classified as follows:
Plaintiffs do not dispute AMR's description of the part-time employees, groups (1) and (2) above. They do, however, dispute the contention that the employees in group (3) were notified pursuant to AMR's RIF Regulations. They also argue that the employees in group (3) and (4) were not "laid off" or "immediately placed" in other positions, contending instead that these employees were "terminated."
The parties have agreed to narrow the scope of their dispute to the 18 employees in group (3). The resolution of their status is dispositive of the motion.
WARN requires 60-day notice of plant closings or other specified types of employee terminations. It provides:
29 U.S.C. § 2102(a). The parties agree that AMR is an "employer" as defined by WARN. See id. § 2101(a)(1).
The term, "mass layoff," is defined in terms of numbers and percentages of those laid off as a "reduction in force" which:
Id. § 2101(a)(3)(A)-(B). "Employment loss" is defined as a termination, a lay off exceeding 6 months, or a substantial reduction in hours of work:
(A) an employment termination, other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure, or retirement, (B) a layoff exceeding 6 months, or (C) a reduction in hours of work of more than 50 percent during each month of any 6-month period.
Id. § 2101(a)(6). Lay offs do not constitute an "employment loss" unless they exceed six months' duration. Id.; see Kildea v. Electro Wire Prods., Inc., 775 F.Supp. 1014, 1019 (E.D.Mich.1991); Jones v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery, Inc., 748 F.Supp. 1276, 1284 (E.D.Tenn.1990).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nagel v. Sykes Enterprises, Inc.
...will allow these workers to successfully complete in the job market.'" Id. (citing 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (1995); Martin v. AMR Services Corp., 877 F.Supp. 108, 113 (E.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd, Gonzalez v. AMR Services, 68 F.3d 1529 (2d Cir.1995)). To that end, the WARN Act requires an "employer"12 to......
-
Kephart v. Data Systems Intern., Inc., CIV. A.01-2533-KHV.
...and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skills training or retraining." 20 C.F.R. § 639.1(a). In Martin v. AMR Servs. Corp., 877 F.Supp. 108 (E.D.N.Y.1995), aff'd sub nam., Gonzalez v. AMR Servs. Corp., 68 F.3d 1529 (2d Cir.1995), plaintiffs argued that they were "terminated......
-
Wiltz v. M/G Transport Services, Inc.
...Gonzalez v. AMR Servs. Corp., 68 F.3d 1529, 1531 (2d Cir.1995)(per curiam)(quoting with approval opinion of district court, 877 F.Supp. 108, 113 (E.D.N.Y.1995)). In other words, where the termination is at best technical, they have found no WARN violation. 13 See Rifkin v. McDonnell Douglas......
-
Chain v. N. E. Freightways, Inc.
...in employment actually occurred." Gonzalez v. AMR Servs. Corp., 68 F.3d 1529, 1531 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Martin v. AMR Servs. Corp., 877 F. Supp. 108, 113 (E.D.N.Y. 1995)). Under WARN, "an employee may not be considered to have experienced an employment loss if the employer, 'prior to the......