Former Employees of Tesco Technologies, LLC v. United States Secretary of Labor
United States Court of International Trade
30 CIT 1754, 28 Int’l Trade Rep. (BNA) 2585, 2006 WL 3419786 (2006)
- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
In 1962, Congress created the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) program to support workers who had lost their jobs because of foreign competition. To obtain TAA support, a firm could apply to the United States secretary of labor (secretary) (defendant) for certification that the firm’s sales had fallen due to increased imports or that imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by the firm had increased, and the firm had shifted production. Regulations based on legislative history explained that “like” meant substantially identical to and that “directly competitive” meant substantially equivalent for commercial purposes, that is, adapted to the same uses. Automobile manufacturers, including General Motors (GM), needed a steady supply of custom-tailored tools and machines. Tesco Technologies, LLC (Tesco) (plaintiff) designed such equipment for GM. GM began to hire off-shore firms to supply the equipment. Some Tesco employees lost their jobs. Tesco applied to the secretary for a TAA certification. The secretary denied the application on grounds that custom-made designs that were not mass produced could not be like or directly competitive with imported designs. Tesco appealed the secretary’s ruling.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Barzilay, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
