Court Opinion

ID: 9816794
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:35:54.442908+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:02.893985
License: Public Domain

RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I join Part II of the Court’s opinion and, in addition, agree with the result reached by Part I. My route to that result differs, however, somewhat. In my view, the seasonal employees were “affected” and did suffer an “employment loss” when the plant closed in September. But they received 60 days notice in advance of the closing, and that notice complied with the statute. Perhaps the employer should, in fairness, have given an earlier warning. The employees could have used the additional time to look for other
*857work. But Laidlaw seems to me to have done all that the statute requires.