Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union Local 54 v. Elsinore Shore Associates’s Empirical Analysis
173 F.3d 175 · 1999
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Madhat Zubi v. At&t Corp (2000), Kolon Industries Inc. v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. (2014)
17 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey · Mellon Bank Na 91-3160 v. Metro Communications Inc · Idahoan Fresh v. Advantage Produce, Inc. · Norman I. Suchomajcz, Administrator of the Estate of Norman Suchomajcz, a Minor v. Hummel Chemical Company, Newark, New Jersey
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress’s purpose in enacting WARN may provide more guidance. The WARN Act was adopted in response to the extensive worker dislocation that occurred in the 1970s and 1980s. See Richard W. McHugh, Fair Warning or Foul ? An Analysis of the WARN Act In Practice, 14 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 1 , 4 (1993). As companies were merged, acquired, or closed, many employees lost their jobs, often without notice. In some circumstances, the projected closing was concealed from the employees. See Christopher P. Yost, The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988; Advance Notice Required?, 38 Cath.U.L.Rev. 675, 676 (1989). Congress enacted WARN to protect workers and their families from these situations. See 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a) (1998). WARN’s notice period was designed to allow workers “to adjust to the prospective loss of employ ment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and ... to enter skill training or retraining that will allow [them] to successfully compete in the job market.” Id. The thrust of WARN is to give fair warning in advance of prospective plant closings. It would appear, therefore, that if an employer knew of a government-ordered closing and failed to notify its employees, the WARN Act would apply.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[b]y requiring advance notice, the WARN Act aims to 'provide workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market,' and allows the state to provide prompt assistance to displaced workers.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Notice to employees, State dislocated worker units, and local governments An employer 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— (1) 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;”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.