Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, COVERAGE, LIABILITY—4th Cir.: Jury verdict upheld in WARN Act class action against five mining companies deemed a single employer, (Jan 5, 2026)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

The jury had ample evidence of common ownership, directors, and officers; de facto exercise of control; common personnel policies and operations; and employee uncertainty over which company employed them.

The Fourth Circuit declined to disturb a jury verdict finding that five mining companies were liable under the WARN Act for not giving their employees the requisite 60-day notice before shutting down a plant and terminating their employment. Concluding that the jury had sufficient evidence to find the companies were liable as a single employer and that the district court correctly instructed the jury about employment loss, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of their renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motion for a new trial (Gautier v. Tams Management, Inc., No. 24-1401 (4th Cir. Jan. 2, 2026)).

Class action against several companies. This class action lawsuit was brought by a coal miner who had worked at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex (the plant) until October 2019, when the foreman told him the mine was “shut down” and “no longer in operation.” After his effective termination, he filed a putative class action against five companies—Tams Management, Inc., Pay Car Mining, Inc., Bluestone Industries, Inc., Bluestone Resources, Inc., and Bluestone Coal Corporation—alleging they violated the WARN Act by failing to provide the requisite 60-day notice before firing him and other miners. The district court certified the class and then denied the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment.

Trial. Evidence presented at trial included state business records confirming that three of the companies—Tams Management, Pay Car Mining, and Bluestone Industries— had the same officers, and one family-member owner was the president of each. The companies also had the same local office address. Though the coal miner worked for Bluestone Industries, Tams Management issued his paychecks. His supervisor reported to a second-line supervisor who reported to Bluestone Industries’ two family-member owners. Those owners visited the mine three to four times per week, and his supervisor sought approval from the second-line supervisor or the family-member president before making any mine operation decisions.

Both Tams Management and Bluestone Industries paid his supervisor, and he sometimes participated in daily conference calls about mine operations led by the companies’ joint president. The companies’ senior HR executive testified that “there [was] an exchange of employees and machines back and forth to [the] various operations” at the plant, and that some salaried mine managers were Bluestone Industries employees. Other employees testified that they worked for Bluestone, but Tams Management issued their paychecks.

Jury instruction. On the issue of employment loss, the district court instructed the jury: “If you find 50 or more of the [companies’] full-time employees at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex were not terminated from employment from October 14, 2019 through January 11th, 2020, [the plaintiff] next asks you to consider if 50 or more of the [companies’] full-time employees suffered a qualifying reduction in hours.”

Verdict. The jury ultimately found all five companies liable under the WARN Act as a single employer. The jury also concluded that its employees suffered an employment loss under the Act because the companies terminated 50 or more employees and reduced 50 or more employees’ hours. Post-trial, the court denied the companies’ renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law as well as its alternative motion for a new trial.

Single employer. To determine whether the companies were one employer for purposes of the WARN Act, the Fourth Circuit considered several factors, including: “(i) common ownership, (ii) common directors and/or officers, (iii) de facto exercise of control, (iv) unity of personnel policies emanating from a common source, and (v) the dependency of operations.” 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2). After a careful review of the record, the appeals court found sufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding that the companies operated as the same employer.

Common ownership and leadership. State business records showed common family-member directors and officers between Tams Management and some of the companies, including Bluestone Industries. Multiple employees also testified that the same family members owned the companies or they worked for the family. In addition, evidence showed de facto exercise of control by the same family-member directors and/or owners who frequently visited the mine, led conference calls about mine operations, and approved operational decisions. Salaried managers who worked for Bluestone Industries supervised miners paid by the other companies, including Tams Management. Indeed, several employees, including managers, testified that Tams Management was a subsidiary or department of Bluestone.

Common policies. The jury also heard evidence showing common personnel policies and operations, with a senior HR officer testifying that the companies exchanged employees and machines—which employees corroborated. The companies also shared a common payroll system, and state business records showed that Tams Management had the same business address as Bluestone Industries. One longtime employee testified that he didn’t know which entity he worked for because “the company changed names so many times.”

Precedent doesn’t foreclose liability. The Fourth Circuit rejected the companies’ argument that affirming the jury’s verdict would alter its precedent by imposing “indirect liability under the statute on an independent contractor, as opposed to a subsidiary.” While cases involving liability of multiple companies have generally involved parent-subsidy relationships, “we’ve never held that liability isn’t appropriate in other circumstances, and at oral argument, the companies conceded that our precedent doesn’t foreclose liability.”

Employment loss. The Fourth Circuit also rejected the companies’ contention that a new trial was warranted due to the purportedly erroneous jury instruction concerning the WARN Act’s employment loss categories, concluding that the district court “correctly instructed the jury to consider the employment loss categories independently and alternatively.” To the extent they also argued that the instruction led to an inconsistent jury verdict, they forfeited that argument by failing to object to the verdict after the district court read it.

The case is No. 24-1401.

Judge: Diaz, A.

Attorneys: Samuel Brown Petsonk (Petsonk PLLC) for Jules Gautier. Raymond S. Franks, II (Carey Douglas Kessler & Ruby) for Tams Management, Inc., Pay Car Mining, Inc., Bluestone Industries, Inc., Bluestone Resources, Inc. and Bluestone Coal Corp.

Companies: Tams Management, Inc.; Pay Car Mining, Inc.; Bluestone Industries, Inc.; Bluestone Resources, Inc.; Bluestone Coal Corp.

MainStory: TopStory CoverageLiability EmployeeStatus Discharge Layoffs ClassActions MarylandNews NorthCarolinaNews SouthCarolinaNews VirginiaNews WestVirginiaNews GCNNews