Shaw v. Hornblower Cruises & Events, LLC

Background

Clyve Shaw and Kenardro Press brought a proposed class action against Hornblower Cruises & Events, LLC. They alleged violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the New York Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and the Illinois Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. These laws generally require covered employers to provide advance written notice before certain plant closings or mass layoffs.

Shaw worked as a sales manager at Hornblower’s Chelsea Piers, Pier 62 location in New York. Press worked as a deckhand at Hornblower’s Navy Pier location in Chicago. The complaint alleged that Shaw was furloughed in March 2020, recalled for several weeks in July and August, and permanently laid off effective August 17, 2020. It alleged that Press was told in March 2020 not to come to work, but received neither formal furlough notice nor notice that his employment had permanently ended.

The complaint also alleged layoffs at other Hornblower worksites, including sites in California. It proposed three classes: former Hornblower employees covered by the federal law, former employees covered by the New York law, and former employees covered by the Illinois law.

Hornblower’s Motions

Hornblower moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, to partially dismiss allegations concerning worksites where Shaw and Press had not worked. Alternatively, it moved under Rule 23(d)(1)(D) to preemptively strike or deny class allegations concerning those worksites before the plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Hornblower argued that the complaint’s allegations about the other worksites were conclusory and did not provide enough facts to show that the federal or state notice requirements were triggered. It also argued that Shaw’s and Press’s claims could not be common or typical of claims by employees at other worksites because the notice obligations depended on worksite-specific facts.

The plaintiffs argued that the complaint adequately pleaded class claims and that information about employee hours, workforce size, and layoffs was within Hornblower’s records. They also argued that deciding class-certification issues before discovery was premature.

Rule 12(b)(6) Ruling

The court explained that a WARN Act claim requires allegations that the plaintiff worked for a covered employer that failed to provide the required advance notice of a plant closing or mass layoff resulting in an employment loss. The court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true for purposes of the dismissal motion, but it did not accept legal conclusions without supporting facts.

The court did not find the allegations concerning Pier 62 and Navy Pier inadequate. It instead focused on the other worksites. The complaint identified numbers of employees allegedly laid off at sites in Newport Beach, Marina del Rey, San Francisco, and San Diego, but it did not provide enough additional information about the countable workforce at those sites or other facts needed to determine whether the statutory thresholds were met.

The court held that the allegations about the other sites were too tenuous to make it plausible that the notice requirements had been triggered. It therefore granted Hornblower’s motion to partially dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. The plaintiffs could amend to eliminate unsupported allegations or provide additional facts meeting the pleading standard.

Class-Allegation Ruling

The court separately considered Hornblower’s request to strike the class allegations before discovery. It explained that class certification concerns are generally better addressed after a fuller factual record has been developed. A court may strike class allegations at the pleading stage when the complaint itself shows that certification would be impossible regardless of what discovery reveals.

The court was not persuaded that it was impossible for employees at different worksites to share common legal or factual questions. It noted that other courts had certified WARN Act classes involving multiple worksites and that issues such as the timing of layoffs, the required notice period, and the amount of notice practicable under the circumstances might have common answers. The court concluded that discovery could help address site-specific issues and refine the proposed class.

The court therefore denied Hornblower’s motion to partially strike or preemptively deny class certification. It did not decide whether the proposed class ultimately satisfied the requirements for certification.

Disposition

The court’s order states that Hornblower’s motion to partially dismiss the Second Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) was granted with leave to amend, and that Hornblower’s motion to partially deny class certification on a preemptive basis under Rule 23(d)(1)(D) was denied. The overall motion was therefore granted in part and denied in part.