29 U.S.C. § 2105
Procedures in addition to other rights of employees
The rights and remedies provided to employees by this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other contractual or statutory rights and remedies of the employees, and are not intended to alter or affect such rights and remedies, except that the period of notification required by this chapter shall run concurrently with any period of notification required by contract or by any other statute.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Finnan v. LF Rothschild & Co., Inc., 726 F. Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1989).
Finnan v. LF Rothschild & Co., Inc., 726 F. Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). “29 U.S.C. § 2105 . 6 There is no right to punitive damages under WARN.”
Calixto v. Coughlin, 113 N.E.3d 329 (Mass. 2018). “" 29 U.S.C. § 2105 . The company did not defend the lawsuit, and the Federal District Court judge eventually awarded a nearly $2 million default **160 judgment under the WARN Act to the employees.”
Oil, Chem. & Atomic Workers Int'l Union, Local 7-629, Afl-Cio v. Rmi Titanium Co., 199 F.3d 881 (6th Cir. 2000). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2105 (“The rights and remedies provided to employees by this chapter are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other contractual or statutory rights and remedies of the employees, and are not intended to alter or affect such rights and remedies-”).”
Auto. Mechanics' Local No. 701 of the Int'l Ass'n v. Santa Fe Terminal Servs., Inc., 830 F. Supp. 432 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2105 . Although Hoosier Cardinal involved a dispute over enforcing a provision of the collective bargaining agreement, the NLRA six-month period was not borrowed.”
United Mine Workers of Am. Int'l Union v. Martinka Coal Co., 45 F. Supp. 2d 521 (N.D.W. Va. 1999). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2105 . The implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Labor, entitled “Purpose and Scope”, explain: The provisions of WARN do not supersede any laws or collective bargaining agreements that provide for .”
Deppenbrook v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 950 F. Supp. 2d 68 (D.D.C. 2013). “29 U.S.C. § 2105 (stating that the WARN Act's “rights and remedies .”
United Mine Workers of Am., Afl-Cio v. Peabody Coal Co., 38 F.3d 850 (6th Cir. 1994). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2105 . WARN regulations provide further insight, observing that “[cjollective bargaining agreements may be used to clarify or amplify the terms and conditions of WARN, but may riot reduce WARN rights.”
Carpenters Dist. Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 663 (E.D. La. 1992). “” 29 U.S.C. §2105 . Viewing these two provisions of WARN together, we are unable to say that Congress intended to limit the Court’s access to § 1961 to allow an award of prejudgment interest.”
In re Bluffton Casting Corp., 186 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 1999). “” 29 U.S.C. § 2105 . Counts I and IV are based on WARN Act violations.”
Ass'n of Am. Railroads v. Surface Transp. Bd., 161 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1998). “” See 29 U.S.C. § 2105 . D. The Five Million Dollar Threshold Finally, we consider AAR’s contention that the Board’s choice of a $5 million threshold was arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law.”
Carlberg v. Guam Indus. Servs. dba Guam Shipyard (D. Guam 2016). “4 29 U.S.C. § 2105 . Plaintiffs have asserted no breach of contract or additional statutory claim in 5 this case.”
United Paperworkers Int'l Union & Its Local 340 v. Specialty Paperboard, Inc., 999 F.2d 51 (2d Cir. 1993). “See 29 U.S.C. § 2105 (“The rights' and remedies provided to employees by the Act are in addition to, and not in lieu of any other contractual or statutory rights and remedies .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.