By Irene Spezzamonte · Law360 · Feb 8, 2022
Former General Dynamics workers can move forward as a class in their suit claiming the company didn’t give them enough notice that they were getting fired, a Virginia federal judge ruled, finding their claims don’t require individualized inquiry.
U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne said Monday that the workers’ claims that General Dynamics Information Technology violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by failing to provide them at least a 60-day notice they were getting fired can be resolved on a classwide basis.
“The GDIT policies in the record provide flexibility as to where the employees worked, and those policies apply to the class equally without the need for an individualized inquiry,” Judge Payne said.
***
The workers urged Judge Payne in November to certify a class of General Dynamics employees who worked on its Office of Personnel Management contract and were terminated from July to December 2019.They also sought to win class certification for a subclass of General Dynamics employees who worked on its OPM contract…
In his Monday memorandum opinion, Judge Payne turned down the company’s argument that class certification is not warranted because the workers cannot prove they share a single site of employment without a one-by-one inquiry.
***
Issues on whether the class members shared the same work location or whether General Dynamics violated the WARN Act can be resolved on a class basis, since a rule that governs class certification doesn’t require “that those questions will be answered, on the merits, in favor of the class,” Judge Payne said.
The dispute stems from a lawsuit…filed against General Dynamics in September 2019, claiming the company violated the WARN Act when it sent out a first wave of layoff letters on June 19, 2019, stating that some employees’ last day would be on July 3, 2019. General Dynamics sent out other letters throughout the summer, but none gave the 60-day notice required by law, the workers said.
In March 2020, the court dismissed the suit without prejudice, saying the workers failed to prove they met the “single site of employment” requirement under the DOL’s guidance. However, the court gave the workers a chance to amend their complaint.
The following month, the workers filed a new complaint, claiming that General Dynamics violated the WARN Act after failing to give appropriate firing notice to the workers at the Falls Church, Virginia, facility, and sought to recover up to 60 days of wages and benefits.
Isaac Solomon Raisner of Raisner Roupinian LLP, which is representing the workers, said Tuesday that he was pleased with the judge’s decision. “The decision provides important guidance for how the pre-internet WARN Act should be read to protect today’s workforce,” Raisner said.
***