Rifkin v. Mcdonnell Douglas Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that employees laid off for less than six months did not suffer an “employment loss” although the employees expected the layoffs to be permanent
• explaining that “sharing of staff and equipment, and sharing the same operational purpose are appropriate criteria for determining whether two non-contiguous sites comprise a ‘single site’ under the WARN Act”
• rejecting a claim of “single site employment” when “[t]here is no evidence that employees and equipment are regularly shared as opposed to occasionally transferred” between the locations
• “A common sense reading of the [WARN Act] indicates it is the actuality of a termination which controls and not the expectations of the employees.”
• “A common sense reading of the [WARN Act] indicates it is the actuality of a termination which controls and not the expectations of the employees.”
• “Sites need not be contiguous in order to be considered a ‘single site’, but in order for non-contiguous sites to be deemed a ‘single site’, there must be some connection between the sites beyond that of corn- mon ownership.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).