Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Frymire v. Ampex Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Decided July 19, 1995No. Nos. 94-1059, 94-1090Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
PAUL KELLY, Jr., Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Le mieux est l’ennemi du bien. Voltaire, Dramatic Art.
For many of the reasons stated by the court, WARN does not apply to AMPEX’s Colorado Springs operation because it is a single site lacking the requisite number of laid-off employees, therefore, I respectfully dissent. If I agreed with the court that the operations constituted two separate sites, I would concur in the results reached in parts 111(A) (limitations), (C) (good faith) and part of (E) (calendar or work days), but I would dissent in Part III(D) (“pay in lieu…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Supre v. RickettsCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1986
- Carpenters District Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., Etc., Stephen J. Plescia, Etc. v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1994
- International Union, United Mine Workers, Hattie Mae Hilliard v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
- Frymire v. Ampex Corp.District Court, D. Colorado · 1994