This class action brings suit under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988. According to the complaint, Vista Window Company, LLC and Paradigm Operating Company, LLC are responsible under the act for giving sixty days’ notice to workers being laid off.
The class for this action is employees who worked at the Lordstown, Ohio facility and who were terminated as part of the reasonably foreseeable mass layoff and/or plant closing ordered by Vista or Paradigm.
Between December 6, 2018 and January 19, 2019, the facility laid off approximately 120 workers.
The complaint says Vista and Paradigm jointly owned and operated the facility in Ohio where Vista conducted its business. It spends some time fleshing out its allegation that the companies constituted a single employer. For example, it says that Paradigm hired the person who would be the president of Vista; that Vista did not have its own board of directors but that directors of Paradigm conducted monthly meetings at the Vista Facility; and that the companies “shared management-level personnel” who worked at both companies.
In fact, the complaint claims, Paradigm “maintained sole control over all critical business decisions made on behalf of Vista,” including the decision to shut down the Vista facility.
In addition, the complaint claims that the facility meets the requirement for businesses regulated under the WARN Act. It had one hundred or more employees, not including part-timers, or employed one hundred or more employees who worked an aggregate of 4,000 hours per week not counting overtime hours. More than sixty were employed at the Ohio facility.
According to the complaint, the companies were required under the WARN Act to give employees sixty days’ notice of the layoff and/or plant closing. The complaint contends that the companies should have given the workers either sixty days’ notice or reasons for a shorter notice.
According to the complaint, the workers should have been paid for another sixty days and given not only their salaries but all commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday and vacation pay, plus sixty days of 401(k) contributions, medical expenses, and other benefits under ERISA laws. However, the companies did not do this.
The complaint asks the court for the back pay and benefits that the workers should have received under the Act, along with interest on the amounts, plus attorneys’ fees and costs and whatever other relief the court feels is just and proper.