Piron v. Gen. Dynamics Info. Tech.

1

MOLLIE PIRON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL DYNAMICS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, INC. Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:19cv709

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

February 7, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Robert E. Payne, Senior United States District Judge

This matter is before the Court on PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND RELATED RELIEF ("Class Certification Motion") (ECF No. 61). For the reasons set forth below, the motion will be granted.

I. BACKGROUND

Mollie Piron, Stephanie Merino, Bounsou Thamvanthongkham, and Christina Beecroft ("Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals request that the Court certify their claims against General Dynamics Information Technology ("GDIT" or "Defendant"). See ECF No. 61. The Second Amended Complaint, in its sole CLAIM FOR RELIEF, alleges that GDIT violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN" Act) (29 U.S.C. § 2101, et seq.) by not providing at least "60 days' notice prior to terminating 500 or more employees in a mass layoff, or before terminating 50 or more employees in a plant closing." SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF WARN ACT 29 U.S.C. § 2101, ET SEQ. ("SAC") (ECF No. 49 ¶ 6) . In its PRAYER FOR RELIEF, the SAC seeks to recover up to 60 days of wages and benefits of various kinds. Id. GDIT opposes class certification by arguing that the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3) has not been established. GDIT does not contest any of the other factors under Rule 23 as substantiated in the Class Certification Motion. See DEFENDANT GDIT's MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND RELATED RELIEF (ECF No. 72). The crux of the predominance issue is whether Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members can claim a "single site of employment" under the WARN Act by relying on Department of Labor ("DOL") regulations promulgated in Subpart 6 (20 C.F.R. § 639.1(6)).

A. The WARN Act

Before assessing the arguments for, and in opposition to, class certification, it is necessary to provide a brief background on the WARN Act.

Enacted in 1988, the WARN Act requires employers to provide notice of abrupt, substantial employment terminations in order to enable workers to seek alternative employment and to prepare communities for economic disruption. See Meson v. GATZ Tech. Servs. Corp., 507 F.3d 803, 808 (4th Cir. 2007) (relying on Bader v. N. Line Layers, Inc., 503 F.3d 813 (9th Cir. 2007)); 20 C.F.R. § 639.1(a)). The WARN Act requires employers to provide 60 days written notice to employees before effectuating a "mass layoff" or "plant closing". 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a). Under the WARN Act, employees may bring a claim of action when they incur a covered employment loss without such notice, and employers who fail to give this notice are liable to each affected employee for back pay, benefits, and attorneys' fees. 29 U.S.C. § 2104.

The WARN Act defines "mass layoff" as a reduction in workforce at a "single site of employment" that impacts at least 33 percent of the employees and a minimum of 50 employees in a 30-day period. 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(3). The WARN Act does not define the term "single site of employment." However, DOL, the federal agency responsible for administering the statute, has defined through regulations a "single site of employment" as "either a single location or a group of contiguous locations." 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(g) (i) (1) .

The parties in the present case dispute whether certain requirements of the "single site of employment" regulations, particularly Subpart 6, apply to Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members:

For workers whose primary duties require travel from point to point, who are outstationed, or whose primary duties involve work outside any of the employer's regular employment sites (e.g., railroad workers, bus drivers, salespersons), the single site of employment to which they are assigned as their home base, from which their work is the assigned, or to which they report will be the single site in which they are covered for WARN purposes.

20 C.F.R. § 639.3(i)(6).

Courts apply a highly deferential, narrow standard of review for interpretative regulations promulgated by federal agencies. See generally Ohio Valley Env't Coal, v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177, 192 (4th Cir. 200) ("Although [the court's] inquiry into the facts is to be searching and careful, the ultimate standard of review is a narrow one. The court is not empowered to substitute its judgment for that of the agency.") (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)).

In the Fourth Circuit, courts must not only defer to DOL's regulatory interpretation, but also apply the standard set forth by Meson for determining "single site of employment" under Subpart 6 of the regulations when reviewing WARN Act claims. See Meson, 507 F.3d at 809-10. In Meson, the Court of Appeals held that Subpart 6 was "intended to apply only to truly mobile workers without a regular, fixed place of work." Id. at 809.

B. Procedural History

On September 27, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint claiming that GDIT had violated the WARN Act by not providing Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members at least 60 days advance written notice of their terminations. See CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF WARN ACT 29 U.S.C. § 2101, ET SEQ. (ECF No. 1). On March 10, 2020 Plaintiff's AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF WARN ACT 29 U.S.C. § 2101, ET SEQ. (ECF No. 5) was dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to the ORDER (ECF No. 38) and the accompanying MEMORANDUM OPINION (ECF No. 37). In the opinion, the Court determined that the Amended Complaint failed to allege the requirements for the definition of "mobile worker" under Meson because Plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that they fell within Subpart 6. Piron v. Gen. Dynamic Info. Tech., Inc., No. 3:19-cv-709, 2020 WL 115983, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2020). However, Plaintiffs were afforded leave to file another amended complaint "if, upon careful examination, the Plaintiffs' counsel can file such a pleading consistent with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 11." ORDER (ECF No. 38).

On April 27, 2020, Plaintiffs subsequently filed the SAC which alleges that GDIT violated the WARN Act by failing to give adequate written notice 60 days before ordering a mass layoff between July 3, 2019 through September 13, 2019 that resulted in "employment losses" for at least 50 of Defendant's employees as well as 33 percent of Defendant's workforce at the GDIT facility in Falls Church, Virginia. ECF No. 39 ¶¶ 139-40, 145-46. The premise for that allegation is the assertion that the Falls Church facility was the single site of employment for Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members. Id. ¶ 142.

GDIT filed DEFENDANT GDIT'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 41) which was denied because "the Second Amended Complaint alleges facts from which it plausibly could be held that the plaintiffs and class members fit within the so-called 'mobile worker' category [in Meson]. . ." However, the Court also noted that "further development of the record [may] necessitate a different conclusion after the end of discovery." ORDER (ECF No. 50 at 2) .

Thereafter, "the parties . . . completed more than two months of class certification discovery, including production of over 40, 000 pages of documents, interrogatories, and positions." ECF No. 72 at 13 (referencing ECF Nos. 51, 54) . Plaintiffs subsequently moved for PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND RELATED RELIEF (ECF No. 61). Timely replies and responses were filed.

C. Factual Background

GDIT is an information technology company headquartered in Falls Church, Virginia. ECF No. 39 ¶ 14. In the Spring of 2018, GDIT acquired CSRA, Inc. ("CSRA"), a company that performed federal agency employee background checks for the Office of Personnel Management ("OPM"). Id. at 1, ¶ 17. The CSRA/OPM contract was an asset to which GDIT succeeded when it acquired CSRA. Id.

Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members were employed by the CSRA and became employed by GDIT after it acquired CSRA. After the CSRA employees, which included about 1, 200 Investigators and 300 Reviewers, became employees of GDIT, they continued to work on the OPM contract within GDIT as part of GDIT's Civil and Homeland Security Group. Id. at 1.

To support performance of the OPM contract, GDIT maintained a Program Management Office ("PMO") in Falls Church, Virginia. The PMO was divided into two sections: operations management functions and corporate program support. See Ex. 6, ECF No. 66-6 at 14-16, 81. Plaintiffs and Putative Class Members were employed in the PMO's operations management section, which oversaw what GDIT described as its "mobile workforce." Id. at 14, 19, 31. Continuity for field investigations across the country was enabled by GDIT's software known as Case Management System ("CMS"). Id. Operations management employees, including the field investigative staff reported to the PMO. Id. at 14-15.

GDIT's hierarchical nature created a management system whereby the PMO led "the daily priorities of the teams" including those within the Operations Field Branch and Operations Quality Branch (i.e., the "mobile workforce"). ECF No. Ex. 11, 66-11 at 3-4, 9. Works assignments originated from the PMO, led by Anthony Durante who was situated in GDIT's Falls Church, Virginia office. ECF No. 39 at 1-2; Ex. 22, ECF No. 66-22. According to the PMO Falls Church Office Organizational Chart, the majority of employees were considered remote resources, who were subject to Durante's oversight either directly or indirectly. See Ex. 22, ECF No. 66-22 at 2 (representing Durante as...