Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—LAYOFFS—E.D. Mo.: Aluminum plant, that shuttered operations when Mississippi River froze, will face trial on union’s WARN Act claims, (Aug 28, 2025)

By Marjorie Johnson, J.D.

A jury will decide whether the employer provided as much notice as was practicable under the circumstances, and whether its notice substantially complied with the WARN Act’s requirements.

An aluminum manufacturer that abruptly shut down operations at its smelter plant after the Mississippi River froze in January 2024 was not excused for its WARN Act liability under the natural disaster exception, and triable issues existed as to whether the unforeseen business circumstances exception applied, and if so, whether the employer complied with all statutory and regulatory requirements. Ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, a federal district court in Missouri held that while the company could not have foreseen that an ice gorge on the river would delay the shipment of raw materials 60 days prior to its curtailment notice, a jury would decide, amongst other things, whether the quantity of material it stored at the plant was an exercise of “commercially reasonable business judgment,” and whether “a reasonable employee reading the curtailment notice could be left to wonder if operations would resume as soon as the cold weather passed” (United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union v. Magnitude 7 Metals, LLC, No. 1:24-CV-89-ACL (E.D. Mo. Aug. 22, 2025)).

In 2018, the employer began operating an aluminum smelter plant along the Mississippi River. The company employed more than 100 employees at the facility who in the aggregate worked more than 4,000 hours per week. In 2023, the company saw declining sales, and was profitable in only the first and third quarters that year.

Curtailment notice. On January 24, 2024, the employer sent a notice to its employees announcing that it would be curtailing operations at the plant over the next three to five days. It also indicated that most employees would no longer be needed after January 28, explaining that operations had “been severely impaired to the point where they cannot be restored” by “abnormally cold weather.” The notice also stated that the company had and would continue to “actively hunt for fresh capital from potential investors to support the long-term health” of the company, adding, “[w]e will continue that journey and look for ways to restart the smelter in the future.”

Lawsuit. The union sued, alleging the employer violated the WARN Act by failing to provide at least 60-days’ notice to its employees prior to the layoffs. In response, the employer argued that it was entitled to the WARN Act’s “natural disaster” exception due to the extreme weather event or, alternatively, that it was unable to timely obtain essential raw materials due to the freezing of the Mississippi River, which entitled it to the “unforeseeable business circumstances” exception.

WARN Act exceptions. Section 2102(b)(2)(A) excuses an employer from the WARN Act’s 60-day notice requirement “if the closing or mass layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required.” Section 2102(b)(2)(B) provides that “if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to any form of natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, or the drought currently ravaging the farmlands of the United States,” then no notice is required.

Natural disaster. While, the WARN Act does not define “natural disaster,” the Fifth Circuit applied has reasoned that “the appearance of ‘natural disaster’ in a list with ‘flood, earthquake, or drought’ suggests that Congress intended to limit ‘natural disaster’ to hydrological, geological and meteorological events.” Here, the employer pointed out that the ice gorge on the Mississippi River “was so severe that boats became stuck in the ice and portions of the river were completely shut down.” This and other undisputed evidence led the court to conclude “the dangerous conditions created for barge operators and the shutting down of portions of the river to barge traffic caused by this hydrological event could be characterized as a ‘natural disaster’ under the WARN Act.”

Not direct result. However, because multiple factors contributed to the employer’s decision to curtail operations, the court found that the closing of the plant was an indirect result of the weather event at issue, and as such the exception did not apply as a matter law. For instance, while the notice cited the “abnormally cold weather” as the reason for ceasing operations, it also suggested the curtailment was caused, at least in part, by a lack of capital that had been known to the company and its employees prior to the weather event.

Unforeseeable business circumstance. The court did find, however, that the freezing of the Mississippi River and delayed receipt of critical raw materials could be seen as a “sudden, dramatic, and unexpected” event outside of the employer’s control. But while the company could not have foreseen that an ice gorge on the river would delay the shipment of raw materials 60 days prior to January 24, a triable issue existed as to whether the quantity of material stored at the plant was an exercise of “commercially reasonable business judgment,” when they “dramatically impact the plant’s ability to continue operating and to ensure the safety of its workers.” A dispute also existed as to whether the company should have reasonably been able to predict that certain equipment would be negatively impacted by the cold weather.

Regulatory notice requirements. Triable issues existed as to whether the curtailment notice was based on the best information the employer had at that time, and whether it complied with the WARN Act’s regulatory requirements, both of which were required for the exception to apply. The court agreed with the employer that some of the deficiencies in its notice were technical errors that did not prejudice the union. For example, the name and address of the plant was obvious and the union clearly knew how to contact a company official. But the record also suggested the notice failed to make clear whether the curtailment was expected to be permanent or temporary, and “a reasonable employee reading the curtailment notice could be left to wonder if operations would resume as soon as the cold weather passed.”

Moreover, its reference to “most” employees no longer being required after January 28 suggested that some unidentified employees would either be unaffected by the curtailment or would return to work at some point. A factual dispute also existed as to whether the employer had any intention of resuming operations at the time that it issued the notice. The court also noted that, “[a] subsequent notice better explaining the circumstances, particularly if the reason for the permanent closure differed from the original curtailment, could have cured the noted deficiencies of the initial curtailment notice.”

Statutory requirement. Section 2102(b)(3) also required the employer to provide a “brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period” which “provide[s] employees with information that would assist them in determining whether the notice period was properly shortened.” While the employer argued that it met this requirement, the union argued that the notice failed to provide employees with any indication of the underlying facts that made an exception applicable, such as the freezing of the Mississippi River, the shipping delays in the arrival of raw materials, and/or a lack of alumina ore and/or petroleum coke. The court held that a jury would decide the issue.

The case is No. 1:24-CV-89-ACL.

Judge: Crites-Leoni, A.

Attorneys: Greg A. Campbell (Hammond and Shinners) for United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union. Robert S. Seigel (Jackson Lewis) for Magnitude 7 Metals, LLC.

Companies: United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union; Magnitude 7 Metals, LLC

Cases: Layoffs Labor Discharge UnionsMembers MissouriNews