## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 09

- 3596 J OHN E LLIS, T IMO THY P R I CE , an d a l lo the r s s i mi l a r l y s i t ua t e d, P laint if fs -App el lants , v. DH L E XPRESS I NC . ( US A) an d D EUTS CHE P OST AG, f or m er l y know n as D EUTS CHE P OST W ORLD N ET, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 08 CV 06541

—MatthewF. Kenn elly, Judge .
A RG UE D S EP TE MBE R 9, 2010

— D ECI DE D J AN UA RY 11, 2011

Befo re W OO D , E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. T INDER, C i r cu it Judge. P a c k a g e d e l i v e r y s e r v i c e D HL Ex press and i ts Germ an pare nt co m pany, Deutsche Post A G, pu bl i cl y a nnounced on N ovem ber10 , 20 08, that they w oul d sto p offer i ng U.S . d om est i c shi pp i ng o n J anuary 30, 20 09. Thi s a nnouncem ent e ffecti vel y s ounded2 N o. 09

- 3596 th e dea th k ne l l f o r fi ve o f DH L’ s six Chi ca g o l an d f ac i l i ti es , whi chha ndl ed do m es ti c par ce l s al m o ste xc l usi ve l y a nd ha d b ee n s he ddi ng j o bs s i nc e Augus t. The un ion tha t rep resen ted the d rivers and cleri cal w orkers a tth o s e f a c i l i t i e s , th e In t e r n a t i o n a lB r o th e r h o o d o fT e a mste rs Local 705, i m m edi ate l y bega n tal ks w i th D H L to ne g o ti at e se ve r ance a g r ee m en ts f o ri ts mem be r s. ( The co l l ec ti ve b ar g aini nga g r ee m en ts tha t co ve r ed th e wor k er s di d no t p rovi de f o rs ev er an ce b en efi ts
. ) The nego ti ati ons w er e success ful and on Decem ber5, 20 08, y i e l de d a s e v e r a nc e a g r e e men tf o re a c h b a r g a i ningu ni t, the dr i v e r s a nd the o ffi c e wo r k e r s . T he a g r e e ments bec am e o p erative on D ecem ber 9, 2008 , w he n D H L ’s r epr es en ta ti ve s i g ne d the m . W he th erD H L vi o l at ed th e W or ker A dj ustm ent and Retr a i ni ng No t i f i cati on ( W ARN ) Act, 2 9 U. S
. C. § § 21 01

- 21 09 , i n r ea ch i nga nd i m ple m enti ng the se agr eem ents i s the princi pal questio n be for e u s in th is a p p ea l. T he agreem e n t s con tained a nu m ber of differen t severance b enefi ts packag es. The fi rs t was av ai l abl e t o up to 32 5 o fDH L ’s ful l

- ti m e dr i ve r s. Dr i ve r s who o pte d ( an d q u alifie d on se n iorit y g ro u n d s ) f o r th is p ac ka ge w ou ld re c eiv e t en w ee ks of p ay an d be n efit s. D riv er s h ad little ti m e to de ci de whethe rt o pa r ti ci pat e i n thi s pl an ; they w er e s i m ult aneously r equi re d to com ple te a j ob re bi d fo rm on w h ich theyhad to i nd i cate bythe cl ose of busine ss on D ecem ber 11, 2008 , not on ly th eir futu re sh i ft p refer en ce s buta l so whethe rthe y ha d s i g ne d up f orthe ten- w eek p lan

. The o therse ver ance pack age s Local70 5 negot i ate d provi ded fourratherthan ten weeks of p ay an d be n efit s b u t w er e o th er w ise su b s ta n tia llyN o. 09

- 3596 3 si m i l arto the ten- w eekpl an. Th er e were no l i m i ts p lac ed u p on th e n u m b er of w or ke rs w h o c ou ld en ro ll i n the f our- w ee k p lan s, tho ugh one ofthe packag es f or ea c h b a rg ain in g u n it w as aim ed ex c lu siv ely atind ivi du al s w h o h ad al re ady be en l ai d off( these packa ges provi ded no benefi ts) , and the othe rs were ai m ed at w or ker s w ho re m ai ned on sta ff

. Dri ver s an d alr eadyl ai d-o ffo ffi ce work er s w er e g i ven unti lDecem ber22 , 2008 , to deci de w hether they w anted to parti ci pa te in the f o ur - we e k pl a ns . Empl o y e d o ffi c e wo r k e r s a pp e a rto h av e b ee n giv en u n til Jan u ar y 1 8, 20 09 , to m ak e t h eir deci si ons. W or ker s w h o accepte d any o fthe Local70 5- nego ti ate d seve ra nce packa ges si gned the f ol l owing “G ener al W ai verand Rel eas e”: F o ra nd in c o ns i der at i o n o fthe rec ei pt o fthe Se ver ance Pa ym ent a nd o therbene fi ts provi ded i n the Effects Barg ai ni ng Agree m ent ( w hi ch Ia ckno wl edg e ar e pay m en ts a nd b ene fi ts b ey o nd anythi ng to wh i ch Iam al re ady o r othe rwis e enti tl ed), I h ereby w ai ve, r el eas e a nd di schar ge DH L Expr es s ( USA) , Inc . , i ts pa r en t co r po r ati o n, subsi diar i es, r el ate d cor pora ti ons and affi l i ate s, the i rs uc c e s s or s a nd a s s i g ns , a nd the i rs ha r e ho l der s, o ffi cer s, di re cto rs , e m plo yee s a nd ag ents ( he r eina fte rt o g eth er the “ Company ”) , a nd the Te amst er s Lo ca lU ni o n No. 7 05 , a ffi l i at ed wi ththe I nt erna tional B rothe rhood of T eam sters (hereina fterthe “U ni on”) fro m any and al lact i ons, ca uses ofact i on, dem ands, cl ai m s o r l i abi l i ties ( w hether4 N o. 09

- 3596 known o r unknow n) ar i sing out ofm y e m plo ym ent o r the t er m i nati on of m y e m plo ym ent b y th e Company, i nc l udi ngb utno t l i m i te d t o a ny cl ai m s unde ra ny fede r al, s ta te , or l o ca ll aw c o ncer ni ng em plo ym ent r i ghts orem plo ym ent di scri m i nati on o fany ty p e, i ncl ud i ng the N ati onal LaborRel ati ons A ct, the Il l i noi s W or kerA dj ustm ent a nd Retr ai ni ng N oti fi cati on Act, the Feder al W or kerA dj ustm ent an d Retr ai ni ng N oti fi cati on ( W A RN ) A ct, an d l aw s invol vi ng cl ai m s o fdi scri m i nati on ba sed o n ra ce, se x, r el i gion, nati onal or i gi n, di sabi l i ty, ve ter an’ s s tatus, uni on a cti vi ty, mar i ta ls ta tu s, r et al i at i o n, ha r as sment oro therpro tect ed cate gor i es, cl ai m s forbr each o f any i m pli ed orexp re ss em plo ym ent c ontr acts o r c ov en an ts , claim s for w ro n gfu l te rm in at ion, pu b lic pol i cy vi ol atio ns, def am ati on, em oti onaldi str ess o ro th erc o m m o n l aw t o r ts , o rc l ai m s unde ra ny Col l ecti ve Barga i ni ng Agree m ent, S up ple m ental Ag re ement, M emor an dum o fUnder st an di ng ( M OU ) , o ra ny o th era g r ee m en t be tw een the Companya nd the Uni o n. I fur th erunde r st an d that by accepting the S eve ra n ce Pa ym ent, Iam g i vingup m y e m pl o ym entr el at i o ns hi p wi ththe Company, i nc l udi nga ny r ec al lr i g ht s an d s en iority
. . . . I ac kn ow led ge th at I h av e b ee n an d am in t h is d o c u m en t ad vised i n w riting to consu lt an attorne y b efo r e ex ec ut i ngthi s Gen er alRe l eas e an d that the for ego i ng shal lo perat e a s a ge nera lr el eas e and as a p ro m i se not to sue, and that Ihave r ead an d u n d er st an d th is G en er al R ele as e. I ac kn ow l-N o. 09

- 3596 5 edge Ihave r ecei ved se ven ( 7) da ys t o consi der th is G en eral R elease before signing it, and Iun d ersta nd that I have seve n ( 7) days to re vok e it after Isi gn i t. A to talo f50 6 wo rk ers ( som e o fthem were m em ber s o f A utom obi l e M echani cs U ni on L oca l701, w hi ch nego ti ate d i ts o wn si m i l ar fou r - wee kpl an ) s i g ne d a r el ea se a nd r es i g ne d the i re m pl o y m en t i n e xc ha ng e f o re i th erf o ur orte n w eek s o fse ver ance pay and benefi ts. Three h u n d re d n in et ee n d riv er s too k th e ten -w ee k pla n, w h ile 187 w orkers p articip a t e d i n on e of th e three f ou rw eekpl ans. W o r k er s who di d no t par ti ci pat e i n o ne o fthe uni o nne got i at ed se ve r an ce pl an s di d no t r ec ei ve a ny s ev erance payfro m DH L. Those ind ividual s instea d retained thei r seni or i ty sta tus a nd recal lr i ghts, as wellas the ri ght to bring l ega l cl ai m s aga i nst DH L a nd i ts par en t, De ut sc he Po st
. J o hn El l i s an d Ti m o thy Pr i ce , the na m ed plaintiff s in this pu tative class act ion, w ere D H L d riv er s an d L oc al 70 5 m em b er s w h o d id n otp ar tic ip at e in th e u n i on -n eg ot iat ed p lan s. E llis, w h o w as laid o ffda y s be f o r e th e di sc o nt i nua ti o n o fdo m esti c sh i ppi ng w as announced, and Pri ce, w ho w as l ai d offo n J anuary9, 2009 , i nstea d fi l ed sui t, al l eging t h at DH L and it s par en t D eu ts ch e Po stf ai l ed to c o m pl y wi ththe W ARN Act, whi chr equi r es c erta i n b us i ne ss es c o nt empl at i ng “pl ant cl osings” or “ m as s l ayo ff s” to i nfo rm worke rs o f these i m pend i ng eve nts at l eas t si xty days in ad va nce. Ell i s a nd Pri ce s ought backpay and benefi ts. See 29 U
. S. C. § 2 104. They a lso s ou gh t t o re prese nt a cl ass o f6 N o. 09

- 3596 f or m erDH L em plo yee s who had been r epres ente d by Local 705, but the dist ri ct cour t ter m i nated as m oo t th eir m otion to certify a class after g r a nt ing in full DH L ’s m ot ion for s u m m ar y jud gm en t. Se eM uro v. Targ e tCorp. , 580 F.3d 485, 494 (7th Cir. 2009). The dist ri ct c ourtpro vi ded thr ee i nter re l ate d bases f or i ts g r an t o fsum m ary j udg m en t, a l lo fwhi chl ed i t to the concl usi on that the W A RN A c t w as not appli cabl e her e. Fi rs t, the dist ri ct c ourtco ncl ud ed that the DH L l ayoff s co uld notco nsti tute a “ pla nt cl osing” a s defined i n 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 101(a) ( 2) b ec au se the fi ve Chi ca g o l an d f aci l i ti es coul d n ot t oge therbe consi dered a “singl e s i te ofem plo ym ent, ” a nd Pri ce a nd El l is fail ed to put f or th al l ega ti ons suffi ci ent t o ra i se a g enui ne i ssue of m ate ri alf act as to w hethera “pl ant cl osing” o ccurr ed at an y of th e ind ivi d ua l faciliti es. Secon d , the d istri ct cou rt c oncl ud ed that the l ayo ff s co uld notco nsti tute a “ m ass l ay o ff ” as de fi ne d i n 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 10 1( a)(3 ) b ec au se the em p loy m en t los se s a t t h e fiv e fa c ilitie s (c on sid er ed co ll ec ti ve l yf o rthe s ak e o fa r g um en t) d id not r ea chthe re quis i te cri ti calm ass o f33 % o fthe full

- ti m e work

f or ce durin g the r el evantst atuto ryti m e per i od. Final l y, the di str i ct c ourtdeter m in ed that El l i s a nd Pri ce f ai l ed to r ai se a g enui ne i ss ue o fmate r i alf ac t r eg ar di ngthe vol untariness ofthe unio n-neg oti ate d severance ag re em en ts , f at al l y unde r m i ni ngthe i rc o nt en ti o n tha t th e w or ker s who le ft DH L pu rs uant to tho se agr eem ents sh o ul d b e co unt ed as i nv o l unt ar i l y s epa r at ed f o rW ARN A c t p u rp os es . See 29 U
. S. C. § 2 101( a) ( 6) ; 54 Fe d. Reg. 1604 2, 16 048 ( A pr. 20 , 19 89)
. The di str i ct c ourtr eco gni zed th a t t h e D H L w or ke rs h ad to m ak e a to u gh ch oic e inN o. 09

- 3596 7 th e f ac e o fda unt i nge con o m i c ci r cumst an ce s, b utc o ncl ude d tha t th er e was no e vi den ce tha t th eys igned th e seve ra nce agr eem ents i nvol untari l y. Because i t f ound that the b a s e s f o r i t s g r a nt o f s ummar y j ud g men t i n f avo r ofDH L app l i ed equal l y t o Deutsche Pos t, ag ai nst w h om E l l i s a nd Pri ce l evi ed i denti calcl ai m s, the dist ri ct cour t sua sponte gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm ent in f avo r ofDeutsche Postas welland ter m i nated the cas e. Ellis and Pri ce a pp ealthe gr ants ofsum m ar y j ud gm ent. W e r evi ew a dist ri ct c ourt ’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm en t d e nov o, cons tru ing allf a c t s a nd reason able inferen ce s i n the l ight m ostf av o r ab l e to the no n- m o ving p ar ty
. Spi vey v. A da pti veM ktg. LL C, 62 2 F
. 3d 816, 82 2 ( 7th Ci r . 2 01 0)
. S um m ary jud g m en t i s appr o pr i at e i f“ th e m o va nts ho ws tha t t he re i s no g enui ne di spu te a s to a ny m ate ri alf act and the m ova nt i s e ntitle d to j ud gm ent a s a m atter of l aw . ” Fed

. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The W A RN A ct r equi re s “ em plo yer s” ( defined as busi nesse s with 100 o r m or e full

- ti m e e m plo yee s, 29 U
. S. C. § 2 101( a) ( 1) ) to pro vi de em plo yees w ith wri tte n noti ce of im pend i ng “pl ant c l osings” or“m ass l ayo ff s” at l eas t s i xty days pri orto the closi ng o r l ayo ff s. 29 U .S.C . § 21 02 . Th e W A R N A c t d oe s n otap p ly

— an d the em plo y e r ne e d no t pr o v i de a dv a nc e no t i c e t o a nyo f its w orkers

— if th e s h u td ow n of a p lan t d oe s n otres u lt i n an e m plo ym ent l oss o fatl eas t 5 0 full

- ti m e e m plo yee s at a s i ngl e s i te ofem plo ym en t, 29 U
. S. C. § 2 101( a) ( 2) , o r th e l a y o ff s d o n o ta ffe c ta tl e a s t3 3 % o fful l

- t i me e mplo yee s, 29 U
. S. C. § 2 101( a) ( 3)
. Despi te the la c k o f p ra c tic al d ist i n c tio n be tw ee n elim in at in g 4 9 o r 50 fu ll-8 N o. 09

- 3596 ti m e j obs , o r between l ayingo ff32 % o r 33% o fa w or kf o r c e i n a th irt y-d ay p er iod , th e n u m er ica l th re sh old s in the W A RN A ct are i m m utabl e. See P hason v. M er idian Ra il C orp. , 4 7 9 F
. 3 d 5 2 7, 5 3 0 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( “ T h e [ WA RN Act ] dr a ws a l o to fb r i g htl i ne s ; i ti s r e a l l y n o thing b ut line s. . . . N one of t h ese d isti nc tions is ine vitable; allare arbi tr ar y. But usi ng shar p l i ne s m ake s the A ct e asi erto admi ni st er . ”)
. I fa n e m pl o y erc r o ss es one ofthe m wi th o ut p ro vid in g a f f ec te d em p loy ee s t h e re q u isit e n ot ice , i t is l i abl e t o provi de “ea ch a gg rieved em plo yee ” with back pay and benefi ts f orea ch day tha t the W A RN A ct w as violated

. 2 9 U
. S. C
. § 2 104. T ha t is w hy th e 506 d ep arture s pursuant to the uni on- nego ti ate d seve ra nce ag re em en ts a r e c ru c ial h er e: if th os e w or ke rs are co u n te d in the t ota lnum bero faffecte d em p loy ees , DH L m ay have ove rs tepped one o fW A RN ’ s l i nes. I ftheyar e no t counted, however, DH L i s in the cl ear ; El l is and Pri ce e x p l i c i t l y c o n c e d e d th i s p o i n tt wi c e a to r a la r g u me n t
. We th er efo r e be g i n a nd en d o ura na l y si s bye xa m i ni ngthe vo lu n ta rin es s is su e , a s itis d isp os itiv e. See Sp ivey, 622 F. 3d at 822. The W A RN A ct e xcl ud es “vo l untarydepartur e[ s] ” fro m i ts defini ti on o f“e m plo ym ent l oss [ es] ” that t ri gge r i ts no ti fi ca ti o n r equi r ement s. 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 10 1( a) ( 6)
. The W ARN Actdo es no t pr o vi de a defi ni ti o n o f“ vo l unta r y, ” th o ug h i t au th o r i ze s th e S ec r et ary o f L abo rt o i ss ue “s u c h reg u lat ion s a s m ay be n ec e ss ar y t o c ar ry ou t t h is cha pt e r . ” 2 9 U. S
. C. § 2 1 0 7 ( a )
. Be f o r e e na c t i ngthe r e g ul ati ons curr entl y c odi fi ed at20 C. F. R. §§ 63 9. 1- 639. 10, the S ecr eta ryi n the Fed eral R egister ad d re ss e d p u b lic c om m e n t s . See 54 Fe d . Re g. 16 04 2 (A p r. 20 , 198 9). InN o. 09

- 3596 9 doi ng so , the Se cre tar y c l ar i fi ed the Dep ar tm ent o f L abor’s p ositi on on “w ha t con stitut es a ‘vol un tary d ep arture
. ’ ” Id. at16 048. W e give si gni fi cant wei ght t o these in te rp re ta tio n s. Se e U ni t e d St at e s v. M ead Corp. , 533 U
. S. 21 8, 2 27

- 28 ( 2001) ( “[ T] he wel l

- r ea so ne d v i ews o fthe ag e nc i e s i mpl e men t i ng a s t a t ut e c o ns t i t ut e a b o dy of experience and i nfo rm ed j ud gm ent t o w hi ch co urts an d l i ti g an ts m ay pr o per l y r es o r t f o rg ui dan ce , a nd [ w]e ha ve l o ngreco g ni ze d tha t co ns i der ab l e wei g ht sh o ul d be ac co r ded to an ex ec ut i ve depa r tment’s con

st r uct i o n o fa s ta tu to r y sch em e iti s en trus te d t o a dm i nist er . . . .” (qu ot at ion s o m itt ed )); s e eals o Johns on v. Telespect rum Worldwide, Inc. , 29 F. A p p ’x 76, 78 ( 3d Cir. 20 02 ) ( g i vingwei gh t to the v ery i nt er pr et at i o ns a t i ss ue he re). The Se cre tar y e xplained that “ i ncenti ve prog ra m s, includ ing incen tive retire m en t progra m s and volun tary layoff s” sh ou ld typ icall y be con side red volun tary d ep artu r es wi th i n the mean i ng of the W ARN Acts o l o ng as the c i rcum sta nces surr ounding them c om portwith tr adit i onall ega lnot i ons ofvo l untariness. 54 Fe d . Reg. at 16 04 8. Tha t i s, “ a wor k er ’ s r es i g na tion o rr eti r ement m ay be foun d t o not be v ol untaryi fthe em plo yer ha s cr ea te d a ho st i l e o ri nt o l er ab l e wor ke nv i r o nm en t orhas appli ed other f or m s o fpres su re o r coe rci on w hich f orced t h e em p loyee to qu it orresign,” or “w he re a w or ke r w as u n d u ly p re ss u re d to ac c ep t th e p ro gr am .” Id. T h e Se c re ta ry ex p re ss ly d isa gr ee d w ith th e p ro p o sition that “a w orker w ho, after th e ann ou nc em en t of a p lan t c los in g or m as s la yo ff, d ec id es to lea ve ea rly h as n ec es sa ri l y be en co n st ru c tiv ely d isc h ar ge d or q u it

‘ i nvol untari l y. ’ ” Id. In other w or ds, worke r parti ci pa ti on10 N o. 09

- 3596 i n inc en ti ve pr o g r ams i s ge ne r al l y c o ns i der ed vo l unt ary un less the em p loyer i m p rop erly ind uc ed w orkers to lea ve th eir j ob s, eit h er b y c re at in g a h os tile or in to le r ab l e w o r ke n v i r o n me n to rb y a p p l y i n go th e rf o r ms o fundu e pr es su r e o rc o er ci o n. W e ha ve no t pr ev i o us l y addr es se d th e i ss ue of vo l unta r i n e s s i n th e WAR N Ac tc o n t e x t, th o u g h we h a v e c o nsid er ed th e v olu n ta rin es s o f ea rly r e t i r e m en t o ffer s. In th at an alo go u s c on te x t, w e e x p lain ed , The “vo lu n ta riness” questi on . . . tur ns o n such th i ng s a s: di d the pe r so n r ec ei ve i nf o r m at i o n abo ut w hat would happen i n re sponse to the c hoi ce? was th e ch o i ce fr ee fr o m fr au d o r o th er m is co ndu ct? did the perso n have an o pp or tun ity to say no? A ver y shor t peri od to m ake a com p lex choi ce m ay show that the per son coul d not di g es t th e i nf o r m at i o n n ec es sa r y t o the de ci si o n. This w oul d show that t he o ffero fi nfo rm ati on w as i l l usor y a nd ther e was no i nfo rm ed choi ce. Bu t when the em plo yee has ti m e t o consul t s pouse an d fi na nc i ala dviser, the f ac t th athe s ti l lf o und the deci si on har d cannot b e deci si ve. Henn v. Nat’l G eographic Soc’y, 81 9 F
. 2d 824, 82 8- 29 ( 7th Ci r . 1 98 7)
. The a rgum ent s r ai se d b y El l i s an d Pr i ce e ch o th es e ve r y c o nc erns . El l i s an d Pr i ce cont en d tha t th e r es i g na ti o ns , pa r ti cul ar l y tho se o fthe a l r ea dy- l ai d -of f wor k er s, c anno t be c o ns i der ed vo l unt ary b ec au se the em p loy ees r esi gned ag ai nst a bac kdro p ofextr em e e cono mi c u nc e rt ai nty a nd p r e s s ur e e xe r t e d b y DHL. T h ey em p h as ize th at th e d riv er s w er e s im u l t a n e ou slyN o. 09

- 3596 11 prese nted w i th the se ver an c e a gr eem ents and the j ob r e b i d fo r ms, wh i c h i n the i rv i e w r e nd e r e d a nyc hoi ce they had about si gni ng up f oro ne o fthe seve ra nce package s a H obs on’ s cho i ce a t be st. Th ey a l so conte nd that the 3 1 9 dr i v e r s who a c c e pt e d the t e n- we e k pl an had i nadequ ate ti m e t o m ake thei r de c isions. W i th r espect to the alr ead y-l aid-off w orkers w ho ac cep te d th e fourw eek p acka g e s aim ed at them , Elli s and Price assert that thei r re sign at i ons coul d not pos sibl y hav e be en v o l u n t a r y b e c a u s e th e y d i d n o th a v e j o b s t o r e s i g n fr o m. W hi l e we r ec og ni ze the unenvi abl e pos i ti ons i n w hi ch D H L ’s Ch icagoland w orkers foun d them selves, w e are unpe r suad ed bythe se a r g um en ts a nd c anno t co ncl ude o n the e vi den ce b efo r e us tha t t he w o r k er s who ac c ep te d th e u n ion -n eg ot iat ed se ve ra n c e p ac ka ge s d id s o i n v o l u n t a r i l y . T h e a ffi d a v i t s o ff o r me rD HL e mpl o y ee s th atEl l i s an d Pr i ce pr esent painta wre nc hi ng pi c t ur e o fa di ffi c ul tdeci si ontha th a d t o b e ma de qu ickly. B u t the y d o not d em ons trate th at th e w orkers w er e g i ven incom ple te i nfo rm at ion , o r that DH L som eho w st r o n g - a r me d th e m in t o s i g n i n gth e r e l e a s e f o r ms an d ac c ep tin g th e sev er an c e pa c ka ge s aga in st th eir w ill. ( I n d e e d , E l l i s a n d P r i c e e x p r e s s l y d i s c l a i m a n y a r g um en ts th at D H L h ar as se d w or ke rs or c re at ed a h os tile wor ke nv i r o nm en t to i nduce the m t o r es i g n. ) To the con tra r y , s everal affiants tes tified th at th eir m an agers d ec lin ed to d isc u ss th e o p tio n s w ith th em . Cf
. He nn , 819 F. 2d at 829 ( obs er vi ng that em plo yer ’ s u n w i l l i ngness to advi se potenti alea rl y r eti re es w hetherto acc ept an ear l y r eti re m ent o fferwas probabl y du e to a desi re to
“ a v o i d c h a r g e s o fp l a c i n gu n d u e p r e s s u r e o n th e e mplo yee s”)
. The se ver ance agr eem ents and the Gen er al12 N o. 09

- 3596 W ai verand Rel eas e were b ot h nego ti ate d by Loca l70 5 w i th the w or ker s’ i nter est s i n m i nd , and were w rit ten unam bi guousl y in pla i n Engli sh. The G en eralW ai ver an d R ele as e a lso ex p re ss ly a d vis ed w or k e r s t o c on su lt an at torney b ef or e s i gni ng, as di d a l ett erthat L oca l70 5 sent to the a l re ady- l ai d-o ffworke rs . W e a pp re ci ate thattwo busin es s days m ay not have been an expansi ve w i nd ow in w hi c h to fully di scuss m at te rs w ith an at to rn ey . B ut see Joe v. Fir s t B a n kSy s., Inc. , 20 2 F
. 3d 1067, 1 07 0 ( 8th Ci r. 20 00) ( noting tha t a W A RN A ct pl ai nt i ff“pre sente d no m eani ngful proo fo f dur es s” whi chwas “ no t su r pr i sings i nc e [ he ] ha d the re lea se for t w o or th re e d ay s a n d d i s c u ss ed it w ith h is attor ne y ”)
. Ye t “the ne ed to make a de ci si o n in a shor t t i m e, under p re ssur e, i s a n unusual defini ti on o f

‘ i nvol untary
. ’ ” He nn , 8 19 F
. 2d at8 28. Inde ed, many cri m i naldefendants m ust dec id e w hetherto si gn ta ke- i tor - l eave - i t pl ea agr eem ents; “the nee d to act i n haste do es no t m ak e the p lea ‘ i nv o l unt ary ’ i fthe de fen dan t knows and accepts the t er m s o fthe offer . ” Id. Of cour se, cri m in al d efe n d an ts are affo rd ed pro ced ura l safegu ard s to ensu re that their de cisions truly are vol untary. S e e Fed

. R. Crim
. P. 11. Th e w orkers here w er e no t r equi re d to have th eir d eci si ons evaluated by a n i mpa r t i a lj ud g e , b utn e i the ri s the r e a nye v i de nc e th a tD HL d e n i e d th e m t he o pp o r t u n i t y t o e d u c a t e th e mse l ve s ab o utthe i ro pti o ns o rt o di scuss the t er m s o fthe offer s with thei r f am i l i es, fri ends, fi nanci aladvi sor s, o r at to r ne y s. M o r eo ve r, the wor k er s who wer e co nsi der i ngthe t en - wee kpa ck ag e had no t two da y s but ni ne i n w hi ch t o d o so; the GeneralW ai verand Rel eas eN o. 09

- 3596 13 gave worke rs se ven days aft er acc epti ng a seve ra nce pa c k a g e i n whi c h t o r e c o ns i de r a nd r e v o k e the i r acc e ptance. That the w orker s had to deci de w hetherto ta ke th e bi r d i n th e ha nd

— the s eve ra nce packa ges

— o rthe bi rd i n the bush

— the r i ght t o re tain thei r seniori ty ra nk, r emai n o n the r ec al lrol ls f o rthr ee y ea r s, a nd pur su e c l a i ms a g a i n s tD HL

— i n a sh or t peri od ofti m e doe s not re nd erthei r deci si ons i nvol un tary. N ordoes the f act that nei therbi rd was part i cul ar l y a ttr acti ve. Ell i s a nd Pri ce’ s fi nal ar gum ent about the v ol untariness ofthe departure s

— th at th e already -l aid -o ff w orkers co ul d no t l ea ve DH L v o l unt ar i l y b ec au se the y ha d no j obs to l eave fro m

— get s them no fu rther. Thei r posi ti on presup p oses that the al re ady- l ai d-o ffworke rs l ost th eir at ta c h m en t t o D H L th e m o m e n t th ey w er e la id off. T h e re c or d sh ow s , an d E llis an d P ric e a c kn ow ledged at or alar gum ent, thatl ai d -off w or ker s r eta i ned thei r hard- earned seni or i ty sta tus a nd r ecal lr i ghts w ith D H L f or up to three years. I f t h e l aid-off w orkers el ec te d t o s i g n the Ge ne r alW ai ver an d Re l ea se i n e xc h an ge f orthe seve ra nce packa ge, theyga ve up tho se potenti al l y v al uabl e r i ghts a n d ful l y c ut thei r ti es w i th DH L. They m ay not have been w al ki ng aw ay fr o m s pec i fi c po si tio ns , b utthe y wer e el ec tingt o e nd th ei rr el at i o ns hi ps w ith DHL r athe rtha n wai ting a r o un d f o r th r e e y e a r s t o s e e i fn e w o p p o r t u n i t i e s c a me to fr ui ti o n. I n o ffer i ng i ts w or ker s the o l i ve bra nch ofse ver ance p ay , D H L w a s h ed gin g its be ts ag ain st W A R N A c t liab ili ty. Em plo yer s are per m i tte d to “ga m bl e” that enough14 N o. 09

- 3596

w or ker s a ccept thei r pr offer ed i ncenti ve packag es to abso l ve them fro m pote nti alW A RN A ct l i abi l i ty, 54 Fed. Reg. at1 60 43 , and DH L success fully t oss ed the dice here

. El l i s a nd Pri ce a re i n effect ask i ng us to prohibi t s uch behavi or, b u t w e ca nnot r ew ri te the W A RN A ct. W e l i k ewi se de cl i ne the ir i nv i ta ti o n t o t r ea t th e W ARN Act l es s l i k e th e no ti fi ca ti o n proc edu r e th ati t i s an d mor e l i k e the u ni v e r s a l l y a pp l i c ab l e F a i r Lab o rS t a nd a r ds A c t a n d O ld er W o r ke rs B en efitP ro te c tio n A c t t h at it is not. That i s, we m ai ntai n ourpre vi ous stance that W A R N A c t c laim s c an be w aiv ed as p ar t o f a vo lu n ta rily sig n ed ge n er al re lea se . See Har dy v. Chi
. Hous . Aut h. , 18 9 F. A pp ’ x. 51 0, 51 2 ( 7th C ir. 20 06) ( ci ti ng Joe, 20 2 F
. 3d at 1 0 7 0 , a nd I n t’l A ss’n o f M a ch inists & A erosp a ce Wo rkers v. Com pani a M exi ca na deAvi ac i on , 19 9 F
. 3d 796, 79 9 ( 5th C ir. 2000)). W e ar e l eft wi tho nl y o ne i ss ue t o r es o l ve : whethe rthe d istri ct cou rt erred in su a sp ont e grant ing su m m ary j ud gm ent t o Deutsche Pos t. Rec all th at Ell i s a nd Pri ce br o ug htW ARN Actc l ai m s ag ains t bo thDHL and i ts parent, and o nl y DH L m ove d for sum m ary jud gm ent. The di str i ct c ourt, r eas oni ng tha t i fEl l i s a nd Pri ce coul d n ot pre vai lag ai nst o ne defendant theyco uld not p revail agains t its al lege d a lter ego, granted sum m ary j udg m en t to b o thco m pan i es . El l i s an d Pr i ce c o nt en d that because theyhad l i m i ted o p p ortuni ty to conduct d isc ov er y w ith res p ec t t o D eu ts c h e P os t (itis ba se d in G er m an y a n d t h e re w as sign ifica n t d ela y in se rv in g it w it h p rocess and bringing it int o the ca se), sum m ary j ud g men twa s i na pp r o pr i a t e l y g r a nt e d.N o. 09

- 3596 15 D istri ct cou rts ha ve th e au th ority to en ter su m m ary j ud gm ent s ua sponte as l ong as the l osing par ty w as on noti ce that i t had to co m e for w ar d w i th al li ts evi dence. Jud son A tk inso n C a nd ies, Inc . v . L a tini-H o hb erger D him a ntec, 529 F. 3d 371, 38 4 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( ci ti ng Cel ot ex Corp. v. C atre tt, 47 7 U
. S. 31 7, 32 6 ( 1986 ) )
. “In additi on, we have he ld th at ifa district c ou rt grants one d efend an t’s m oti on for su m m ar y j ud gm ent, i t m ay sua s ponte en te rs um m ary j udg m ent i n f av o ro fno n- m o vingde fen dants i fgr anti ng the m oti on would barthe cl ai m ag ai nst thos e no n-m oving defendants. ” Id. ( ci ti ng M alak v. Ass ociated Physici ans, Inc. , 784 F.2d 27 7, 28 0 (7 th C ir. 19 8 6 ) ); see a l s o A c e q u i a, In c . v . P r u d e n t i a l In s . C o . o f A m. , 22 6 F. 3d 798, 8 0 7( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) ( “ [ W ] he r e o ne de fe nd a nts uc cee ds i n w i nning sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n a g ro und co m m on to s ev er alde fen dan ts , th e di st r i ctc o ur t m aya l so g r an t j ud gm en t to the non -m oving d efend an ts, ifthe p lai nt iff ha d an ad eq ua te op p ortu nity to argu e in opp ositi on.”). Th e di s t r i c t c o ur t di d no t o v e r s t e p i t s a utho r i ty here

. A l lo fEl l i s an d P ri ce’ s s ubstanti ve al l ega ti ons i m pli cate b o th D HL a n d De u t s c h e P o s t ; th e i rfi r s ta me n d e d c o mp lain t e ve n alleg es th at D eu ts c h e P os t w as “a t a ll tim es . . . th e al te r eg o o fDHL Expr es s an d m aint ains s tr i ctc o ntr olo ver D H L Exp re ss. ” F i rs t Am
. Com pl. ¶ 4
. W hen th e d istri ct cou rt co r r e ctly conc lud ed that sum m ary j u d g m e n t f o r D H L w a s a p p r o p r i a t e , th e n e c e s s a r y i mpl i ca ti o n was tha t th e i den ti ca lc la i m s ag ains t Deut sc he Postco uld notsuc c ee d ei ther

. W hetherthe departure s wer e vo l unt ary, whethe rthe r e was a “ pl an t cl o sing, ” an d w hetherther e wa s a “ m ass l ayo ff ” a re i ssues that16 N o. 09

- 3596

w er e whol l y unaffecte d by the pre cise corpor ate i denti ty of th e d efe n d an t. Fu rt h er , E llis an d P ric e h ad a m p le noti ce that D H L w as pursui ng sum m ar y j ud gm ent o n th e clai m s th atwer e co m m o n t o b o thde fen dan ts , a nd th eyv i g o r o us l y o ppo se d the motio n b y pr o cur i nga nd com i ng f or w ar d w i th hund re ds ofpages o fdocum ents an d de clarations. Th e d istri ct co u r t ’s grant of sum m ary j ud gm ent in f avo r ofbo th defendants i s A FFI RMED .

1- 11- 11