Whether courts should distinguish between 'terminations' and 'layoffs' under the WARN Act by applying an objective standard that examines the employees' reasonable expectation of recall at the time of the employment cessation, based on the employer's written and oral communications, policies and practices, industry standards, and other factors

QUESTIONS PRESENTED On February 5, 2016, Hamilton County Coal, LLC (“HCC”) notified 158 full-time employees, approximately 50 percent of its full-time workforce, that their employment was ending at midnight. A month later, Carl Leeper filed this class action seeking relief for HCC’s failure to provide 60-days’ written notice under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seg. (“WARN Act”). Over the next 6 months, HCC rehired 56 of the 158 affected workers at their prior wages, including 50 that HCC brought back on August 1, 2016, 5 months and 24 days after the February 5 notice. This case presents two important questions of federal law, the first of which has created a split among the circuits: 1. Whether courts should distinguish between “terminations” and “layoffs” under the WARN Act by applying an objective standard that examines the employees’ reasonable expectation of recall at the time of the employment cessation, based on the employer’s written and oral communications, policies and practices, industry standards, and other factors. 2. Whether “a reduction in hours of work of more than 50 percent during each month of any 6month period” under the WARN Act includes months in which the employee suffers a 100 percent reduction in hours.