Wilson v. Airtherm Products, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
436 F.3d 906 (2006)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
Airtherm Products, Inc. (API) (defendant) manufactured heating and air-conditioning products. Mestek, Inc., engaged in the same business area and became interested in purchasing API. Mestek formed a subsidiary called Airtherm LLC (ALLC) for purposes of the purchase. In May 2000, ALLC and API executed an asset-purchase agreement for the sale of API to ALLC, which was later amended to provide that ALLC agreed to rehire most categories of employees such that fewer than 50 employees would lose employment. The sale closed on August 25, 2000, and ALLC hired a substantial number of API employees within a month. A group of former API employees (plaintiffs), including those hired by ALLC, sued API for failure to give notice of a plant closing under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). The district court granted summary judgment for the employees, and API appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bowman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 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.