Legal Opinion

Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Nassco Holdings Inc.

California Court of Appeal, 5th District

Decided November 30, 2017No. D070620PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtHaller, J.

*1111Under a California law known as the California WARN Act, employers must provide 60 days' notice to affected employees before ordering a "mass layoff." ( Lab. Code, § 1400 et seq. )1 A labor union and several employees sued an employer, alleging the employer violated this law by failing to provide notice before ordering about 90 employees not to return to work for four to five weeks. The employer countered that the California WARN Act was inapplicable because its action was a temporary furlough and not a "mass layoff." All parties recognized there was no liability under the parallel federal…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Brinker Restaurant Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. Continental Casualty Co. v. Phoenix Construction Co.California Supreme Court · 1956
  3. California Teachers Ass'n v. Governing Board of Rialto Unified School DistrictCalifornia Supreme Court · 1997
  4. Day v. City of FontanaCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
  5. Lee v. HanleyCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015

26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Cruz v. HMR Foods Holding, LP (In re HMR Foods Holding, LP)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2019
  2. 525-655 Hyde Street CNML Props v. City of Oakland etc. CA1/1California Court of Appeal · 2021
  3. Gonzalez v. Interstate Cleaning Corp.California Court of Appeal · 2024
  4. Neal v. United Furniture Industries, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi · 2025
  5. Pease v. Zapf, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2018

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API