Randstad was responsible for paying the wages of Plaintiffs. Amended

1

Complaint ¶ 15.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHERYL DUPREE-CROKETT, on

behalf of herself and on behalf of a class

of other similarly situated former

employees of Defendants

 v. 

THE FRANKLIN MINT, et al.

: CIVIL ACTION 

:

: NO. 05-CV-1215

:

:

:

:

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Kauffman, J. January 30, 2006

Cheryl Dupree-Crokett (“Dupree-Crokett”), on behalf of herself and a class of

approximately ninety others similarly situated (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brings this putative

class action against The Franklin Mint (“Franklin”) and Randstad North America, LP

(“Randstad”) (collectively, “Defendants”) for Franklin’s alleged failure to provide written notice

of a mass layoff in November 2003 in violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining

Notification Act (“WARN”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 to 2109. For the reasons that follow, the Court

will grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss.

I. Background

Franklin markets heirloom-quality collectibles to the public. Franklin’s Mem. Supp.

Dismiss at 3. At its facility in Media, Pennsylvania, Franklin supplemented its work force with

temporary or contract workers from independent staffing agencies, such as Randstad. Amended 1

Complaint ¶¶ 6-9, 16; Franklin’s Mem. Supp. Dismiss at 3. 

Case 2:05-cv-01215-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/30/06 Page 1 of 5
2

 On November 11, 2003, Franklin laid off approximately 150 employees. Id. ¶¶ 19, 23. 

In compliance with WARN, it provided written notice of the layoffs and also distributed an

announcement explaining the reasons for downsizing. Franklin’s Mem. Supp. Dismiss at 3, Ex.

A. It did not provide WARN notice to Plaintiffs. Amended Complaint ¶¶ 20, 29. On May 18,

2005, Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. Franklin and Randstad filed their Motions to

Dismiss on June 6, 2005 and June 24, 2005, respectively. 

II. Legal Standard

When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court may

look only to the facts alleged in the complaint and its attachments. Jordan v. Fox, Rothschild,

O'Brien & Frankel, 20 F.3d 1250, 1261 (3d Cir. 1994). The Court must accept as true all wellpleaded allegations in the complaint and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. 

Angelastro v. Prudential-Bache Sec., Inc., 764 F.2d 939, 944 (3d Cir. 1985). A Rule 12(b)(6)

motion will be granted only when it is certain that no relief could be granted under any set of

facts that could be proved by the plaintiff. Ransom v. Marrazzo, 848 F.2d 398, 401 (3d Cir.

1988). 

III. Analysis

Plaintiffs allege that Franklin and Randstad violated the notice requirements of WARN. 

Under WARN, an employer with more than 100 full-time employees “shall not order a plant

closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of

such an order . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a). The employer must give the notice to “each

representative of the affected employees as of the time of the notice or, if there is no such

representative at that time, to each affected employee . . . .” 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a)(1). Failure to

Case 2:05-cv-01215-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/30/06 Page 2 of 5
29 U.S.C. § 2107 grants the Department of Labor (“DOL”) authority to issue 2

implementing regulations to carry out WARN.

3

give adequate notice renders the employer liable to each “affected employee” for back pay and

benefits for the number of days notice was wrongfully not given. 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1).

A. Claim Against Randstad

Randstad never fired or laid off Plaintiffs and thus had no obligation to provide a WARN

notice. See 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a); 20 C.F.R. § 639.2; Administaff Cos., Inc. v. New York Joint

Bd., Shirt & Leisurewear Div., 337 F.3d 454, 457 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding that a staffing agency

had no obligation to provide WARN notice to the employees affected by a plant closing ordered

by the company that used its services because the staffing agency did not order the plant closing). 

Accordingly, the Court will grant Randstad’s Motion to Dismiss.

 B. Claim Against Franklin

As noted above, WARN requires employers to give notice to all “affected employees.”

Franklin argues that Plaintiffs do not qualify as “affected employees” entitled to notice.

The term “affected employees” means “employees who may reasonably be expected to

experience an employment loss as a consequence of a proposed . . . mass layoff by their

employer.” 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(5). Under the implementing regulations of the Department of

Labor, “[c]onsultant or contract employees who have a separate employment relationship with

another employer and are paid by that other employer, or who are self-employed, are not

‘affected employees’ of the business to which they are assigned.” 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(e); see 2

Bradley v. Sequoyah Fuels Corp., 847 F. Supp. 863, 868 (E.D. Okla. 1994) (finding that an

employee of Sequoyah Fuels Corporation (“SFC”) who was asked to resign from SFC to become

Case 2:05-cv-01215-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/30/06 Page 3 of 5
4

an employee of a staffing company with the same job duties and the same pay was not an

“affected employee” entitled to WARN notice when SFC experienced a plant closing); Shannon

v. Computer Assocs. Int’l, Inc., 45 P.3d 345, 349 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002) (holding that an

employee who resigned to become an independent contractor was not an “affected employee”

entitled to WARN notice). 

As a matter of law, Plaintiffs here were contract workers who are specifically excluded

from WARN notice under the DOL regulation. After their temporary assignments at Franklin

ended, Plaintiffs remained employees of Randstad. In short, Plaintiffs were employees of

Randstad, not Franklin. Accordingly, Plaintiffs were not “affected employees” and thus were not

entitled to WARN protection. 

IV. Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss. An

appropriate Order follows.

Case 2:05-cv-01215-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/30/06 Page 4 of 5
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHERYL DUPREE-CROKETT, on

behalf of herself and on behalf of a class

of other similarly situated former

employees of Defendants

 v. 

THE FRANKLIN MINT, et al.

: CIVIL ACTION 

:

: NO. 05-CV-1215

:

:

:

:

ORDER

AND NOW, this 30 day of January, 2006, it is ORDERED that Defendants’

th

Motions to Dismiss (docket nos. 9 and 11) are GRANTED for the reasons stated in the

accompanying Memorandum. The Clerk of the Court shall mark this case CLOSED.

BY THE COURT:

 /s/ Bruce W. Kauffman 

BRUCE W. KAUFFMAN, J.

Case 2:05-cv-01215-BWK Document 16 Filed 01/30/06 Page 5 of 5