In Roquet v. Arthur Anderson , the plaintiffs sued for an alleged violation of the WARN Act s notification provisions. Arthur Anderson defended by saying that they should not be held to the 60 day requirement because of the particular business circumstances in this case. The court said that:
A) the 60 notice obligation is eliminated if the layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not probably foreseeable
B) the 60 notice obligation is eliminated if the layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable
C) the moment the Department of Justice informed the defendant that they were considering an indictment, the defendant had the obligation to notify its employees of the inevitable layoffs
D) when a company s felonious misconduct is the cause of its financial difficulties, this negates the exception to the WARN notification requirements, and the company cannot claim that they were trying to avoid layoffs or fighting to stay afloat

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court held that the 60-day notice obligation is eliminated if the layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable. Arthur Anderson was not held liable for violating the WARN Act because they were able to prove that the layoff was caused by unforeseeable business circumstances. The court held that the 60-day notice obligation is only eliminated if the layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable. This means that even if a company is facing financial difficulties, they still have an obligation to provide notice to employees unless the circumstances leading to the layoffs were unforeseeable.

In Roquet V