Former employees of the Macon County Greyhound Park (MCGP) sued for violations of the WARN Act for MCGP’s failure to give 60 day notice of plant closing or mass layoff. MCGP maintained that no warnings were required under WARN because the actions did not constitute a mass layoff or plant closing under the WARN Act. MCGP also maintained that they were entitled to invoke the defense of unforeseen business circumstances, which would exempt them from the duty to give 60-day notice.

MCGP was a former greyhound racetrack turned into an electronic gaming facility. A new Governor created a Task Force on Illegal Gambling and began cracking down on Alabama establishments that offered it. On January 5, 2010, MCGP laid off 68 employees due to scheduled renovations (at the time, they had 865 employees), saying it was temporary. A month later, the Task Force seized MCGP’s electronic gaming machines. MCGP filed suit, and a restraining order was issued, but overturned on appeal. With that decision, MCGP laid off all remaining employees on February 4, 2010 without notice. On March 5, 2010, litigation resumed when Macon County officials and citizens filed a lawsuit in Circuit Court arguing that the Task Force lacked authority. On March 5, 2010, the Circuit Court entered a second temporary restraining order against the Task Force, and MCGP reopened for business. On July 30, 2010, The Supreme Court of Alabama reversed. On August 9, 2010, MCGP, in anticipation of a looming Task Force raid, permanently closed its doors. No WARN notice was provided at any of these layoffs or closings

1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

2. Was the January 2010 layoff, by itself, a “mass layoff”? Why or why not? Was the February 2010 layoff, by itself, a “mass layoff” and/or “plant closing”? Why or why not? Does it matter that the facility reopened within about thirty days? Why or why not?

3. Why does the appeals court say that the district court erred by combining the January and February layoffs? Why does it matter whether the January layoffs were expected to last more than six months?

4. Why does the court say that the “unforeseeable business circumstances? Defense is not available to this employer? If this employer had been able to argue for the unforeseeability of the events causing the layoffs/closings, would they have been successful in doing so? Why or why not?