Administaff v. New York Joint Board

337 F.3d 454 (2003)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
A
From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Administaff v. New York Joint Board

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
337 F.3d 454 (2003)

SR

Facts

Administaff Companies, Inc. (Administaff) (defendant) provided personnel and human-resources services to TheCustomShop.com Inc. (TCS), the owner of a clothing-production plant in New Jersey. Under their agreement, Administaff provided TCS with employees and was responsible for paying the employees’ salaries and wages. TCS was responsible for other payments, such as commissions and bonuses. Although Administaff acted as a co-employer in order to allow the employees to obtain benefits through Administaff’s policies, the employees worked solely for TCS. Administaff retained the right to hire or terminate employees but otherwise had no responsibility over the operation of TCS’s business. In 2000, TCS began experiencing financial difficulties and was unable to overcome those difficulties. TCS closed the New Jersey plant without providing 60 days’ notice to the employees as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq. Administaff was unaware of TCS’s decision until after the decision was made. The New York Joint Board (Board) (plaintiff), which was the union for the plant employees who had been laid off, sued Administaff for violating the notice requirement of the WARN Act and sought back pay and benefits. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Administaff. The Board appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Jones, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 789,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 789,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Employment Law

Key Terms