Tenth Circuit· 7/19/1995

Frymire v. Ampex Corp.

Citations

61 F.3d 757
1995 WL 429053

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

applying the good-faith exception when “reasonable minds could come to an entirely different conclusion” on whether employer’s contiguous facilities were a single site of employment
applying contract limitations period even though Colorado is at-will employment state
evidence that the employer subjectively intended to comply with the Act “can include . . . general evidence that the company had its employees’ welfare in mind.”
“Apparently the Supreme Court has tacitly agreed that § 1961(a) does not control the award of prejudgment interest.” (citing Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990))
damages calculated on number of working days lost during the violation period
in considering good faith reduction, noting that “while Ampex did violate WARN’s sixty-day notice requirement, the company had provided all of its employees, months in advance, more generalized notice that major layoffs were imminent”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Barrett, Bright, Kelly

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

60 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

32 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named Frymire v. Ampex Corp.

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.