Meson v. GATX Technology Services Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• basing its decision on “the purposes of the WARN Act, the provision’s language, and the Department of Labor commentary”
• “Notwithstanding this alternative approach, we find that the purposes of the WARN Act, the provisions’ language, and the Department of Labor commentary make it plain that subpart (6) was not intended to cover employees like Meson.”
• first citing Bader v. N. Line Layers, Inc., 503 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2007); and then citing 20 C.F.R. § 639.1(a)
• “Although subpart (6) could be read literally to cover almost any employee who leaves her office, we believe it was intended to apply only to truly mobile workers without a regular, fixed place of work.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).