Opinion ID: 175980
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Substantial continuity of the same business operations

Text: Where a Factory 2-U store once stood, a Dollar Tree now operates after a substantial renovation. Dollar Tree purchased the lease on the building, but absolutely nothing else. Although both stores sell some clothing, it is undisputed that Dollar Tree did not acquire any of Factory 2-U's merchandise; that Dollar Tree sells a wide variety of merchandise whereas Factory 2-U sold clothing only; and that Dollar Tree sells items for $1 only whereas Factory 2-U sold clothing at many different prices. Both stores operated a retail business selling discounted merchandise, but the similarities end there. This factor strongly supports a conclusion that Dollar Tree is not a successor to Factory 2-U. In most cases in which courts have found substantial continuity, the new employer simply assumed a contract over a particular business function with few, if any, changes to the operation of the business. For instance, in Cobb, 452 F.3d at 546, the United States Postal Service (USPS) contracted with a trucking company to deliver mail on specified routes. At the end of a contract term, a new employer won the contract and hired the old employer's truck drivers, including the plaintiff. Id. at 546-47. The plaintiff continued to deliver mail along the same routes, using the same trucks. Id. at 547. The court held that substantial continuity existed because, [i]n reality, it [is] as if Plaintiff works for the USPS and not for one particular trucking company. Only the management, not the job, has changed. Id. at 557. Similarly, in Grace, 521 F.3d at 660, the court found substantial continuity where the plaintiff worked for a government agency through various contracting houses. When a new contracting house won the contract bid, it hired the plaintiff and many others to continue performing the same services. Id. The plaintiff was employed continuously since 1996 and her duties stayed the same throughout her move from one placement agency to another. Id.; see also Barrilleaux, 1999 WL 144110, at  (finding substantial continuity where employee was re-hired the same day on which the old hotel employer was purchased by the new employer and the employee continued performing the same duties); Vanderhoof, 988 F.Supp. at 513 (finding substantial continuity where the employees had the same job and duties and the only difference was that they merely had to fill out new paperwork); Jolliffe, 971 F.Supp. at 1042 (finding substantial continuity where job duties of sheriff's secretary were identical, even though a new sheriff was elected). The facts here are vastly different despite Plaintiff's statement that Dollar Tree continued in the same retail business operation. That both stores were retail business operations is too general to demonstrate substantial continuity giving rise to successorship liability. Were it otherwise, the replacement of a Safeway by a Saks Fifth Avenue, after a month of renovations, would create successorship liability. Additionally, in most cases in which continuity is found, there is no break in operations: The employees continue working on day one of new employment just as they had on the last day of their former employment. Here, the transition period of almost a monthwhen the store was closed to the public, and when Plaintiff underwent two weeks of training and two weeks of helping prepare the new store for regular businessfurther distinguishes the present situation from those other cases.