{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-20","fingerprint":"ewai:us:49b4aa","proof":"sha256:c7719b3193970e98ed938186d1b9f8cc014cfb2d186f0250a7cdcdc8e4561f66","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"Front matter","paragraphs":["para_1","para_2","para_3","para_4","para_5","para_6","para_7","para_8","para_9","para_10","para_11","para_12","para_13","para_14","para_15","para_16","para_17","para_18","para_19","para_20","para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24","para_25","para_26","para_27","para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35","para_36","para_37","para_38","para_39","para_40","para_41","para_42","para_43","para_44","para_45","para_46","para_47","para_48","para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53","para_54","para_55","para_56","para_57","para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63","para_64","para_65","para_66","para_67","para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75","para_76","para_77","para_78","para_79","para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84","para_85","para_86","para_87","para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101","para_102","para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107","para_108","para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118","para_119","para_120","para_121","para_122","para_123","para_124","para_125","para_126","para_127","para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137","para_138","para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167","para_168","para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180","para_181","para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187","para_188","para_189","para_190","para_191","para_192","para_193","para_194","para_195","para_196","para_197","para_198","para_199","para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204","para_205","para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212","para_213","para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217","para_218","para_219","para_220","para_221","para_222","para_223","para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231","para_232","para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236","para_237","para_238","para_239","para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245","para_246","para_247","para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253","para_254","para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260","para_261","para_262","para_263","para_264","para_265","para_266","para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270","para_271","para_272","para_273","para_274","para_275","para_276","para_277","para_278","para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282","para_283","para_284","para_285","para_286","para_287","para_288","para_289","para_290","para_291","para_292","para_293","para_294","para_295","para_296","para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301","para_302","para_303","para_304","para_305","para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311","para_312","para_313"],"kind":"front_matter"}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"PUBLISHED","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 24-1401","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"JULES GAUTIER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Plaintiff – Appellee,","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"TAMS MANAGEMENT, INC.; PAY CAR MINING, INC.; BLUESTONE","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"INDUSTRIES, INC.; BLUESTONE RESOURCES, INC.; BLUESTONE COAL","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"CORPORATION,","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"Defendants – Appellants.","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"Beckley. Frank W. Volk, Chief District Judge. (5:20−cv−00165)","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Argued: October 21, 2025 Decided: January 2, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"Thacker and Judge Rushing joined.","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"ARGUED: Steven Robert Ruby, CAREY DOUGLAS KESSLER & RUBY PLLC,","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Samuel Brown Petsonk, PETSONK PLLC,","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Oak Hill, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Raymond S. Franks II, CAREY","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"DOUGLAS KESSLER & RUBY PLLC, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Bren","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"J. Pomponio, MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC., Charleston, West Virginia, for","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"Appellee.","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 1 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"2","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"DIAZ, Chief Judge:","paragraph_id":"para_26","court_paragraph":2},{"text":"A jury found five mining companies liable under the Worker Adjustment and","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”) for not giving their employees notice","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"before firing them. The companies now appeal the district court’s denial of their renewed","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"motion for judgment as a matter of law and alternative motion for a new trial. Because the","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"jury had sufficient evidence to find the companies were a single employer and the court","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"correctly instructed the jury about employment loss, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"I.","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"The WARN Act “requires certain employers to provide notice to their employees of","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"sudden, significant employment loss so that they [can] seek alternative employment and","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"their communities [can] prepare for the economic disruption of a mass layoff.” Schmidt v.","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"FCI Enters. LLC, 3 F.4th 95, 101 (4th Cir. 2021) (citation modified). The Act states:","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"An employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"notice of such an order . . . to each representative of the","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"affected employees as of the time of the notice or, if there is no","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"such representative at that time, to each affected employee.","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"29 U.S.C. §§ 2102(a), (a)(1).","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Generally, the statute’s “scope of liability . . . extends precisely to a company’s own","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"employees,” but in “some instances distinct businesses may count as the same employer","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"for purposes of the WARN Act.” Pennington v. Fluor Corp., 19 F.4th 589, 596 (4th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"2021). That happens “where the operational differences between the . . . companies are","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 2 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"3","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"purely formal, so that for all intents and purposes the businesses really do operate as the","paragraph_id":"para_50","court_paragraph":3},{"text":"same employer.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"An employer that violates the notice provision is liable to employees who suffered","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"an “employment loss.” 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a). Employment loss means:","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"(A) an employment termination, other than a discharge for","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"cause, voluntary departure, or retirement, (B) a layoff","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"exceeding 6 months, or (C) a reduction in hours of work of","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"more than 50 percent during each month of any 6-month","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"period.","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"Id. § 2101(a)(6).","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"II.","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"When the losing party challenges a jury verdict, we view the disputed facts in the","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"light most favorable to the prevailing party. See Wiener v. AXA Equitable Life Ins. Co., 58","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"F.4th 774, 784 (4th Cir. 2023) (Wiener I).","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"Coal miner Jules Gautier worked at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex until","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"October 2019, when foreman Billy McClung told him the mine was “shut down” and “no","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"longer in operation.” J.A. 122, 133. Gautier understood his “job just was terminated.”","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"J.A. 134. He hadn’t received notice.","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"Gautier filed a class action suit against five companies—Tams Management, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"Pay Car Mining, Inc., Bluestone Industries, Inc., Bluestone Resources, Inc., and Bluestone","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"Coal Corporation—under the WARN Act. He alleged that the companies didn’t provide","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"their employees sufficient notice before firing them.","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 3 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"4","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"The district court certified the class. It then denied the parties’ cross motions for","paragraph_id":"para_75","court_paragraph":4},{"text":"summary judgment.","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"The evidence at trial showed the following.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"State business records confirmed that three of the companies—Tams Management,","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"Pay Car Mining, and Bluestone Industries—had the same officers, and James Justice III","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"(“Jay Justice”) was the president of each. Two of the companies—Tams Management and","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"Bluestone Industries—had the same directors, Jay and Jillean Justice. The companies also","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"had the same local office address.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"Gautier worked for Bluestone Industries, but Tams Management issued his","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"paychecks. Gautier reported to Albert Grimmett, who in turn reported to Kenny Lambert.","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"Lambert reported to Bluestone Industries’ owners: Jay Justice and his father, Jim Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Jay and Jim Justice visited the mine three to four times per week, and Grimmett sought","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"approval from Lambert or Jay Justice before making any mine operation decisions.","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"Grimmett worked for “[t]he Justice family,” and Tams Management was “[l]ike a","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"subsidiary of [Bluestone].” J.A. 214–15. Both Tams Management and Bluestone","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"Industries paid Grimmett. He sometimes participated in daily conference calls about mine","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"operations led by Jay Justice.","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"Patrick Graham served as the companies’ Senior Vice President for Safety and","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"Human Resources. In that role, he had hiring and firing authority. He testified that “there","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"[was] an exchange of employees and machines back and forth to [the] various operations”","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 4 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"5","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"at the Burke Mountain complex and that some salaried mine managers were Bluestone","paragraph_id":"para_98","court_paragraph":5},{"text":"Industries employees. J.A. 240–41, 243.","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"Leslie Wells was the “Senior Payroll Coordinator” for the “Justice Companies.”","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"J.A. 248. She maintained check history reports and verified that each report listed an","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"employee’s “department” within Bluestone, such as Tams Management or Pay Car Mining.","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"Ronald Matthews, another Burke Mountain miner, testified that Tams Management","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"was the same as Bluestone and that the administrative office where miners applied for","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"positions and submitted paperwork had “always [been] the same place” and “always been","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"Bluestone.” J.A. 204.","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"Mine equipment operator Joshua Lilly worked for Bluestone, and Tams","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"Management, “a subsidiary of the company,” issued his paycheck. J.A. 185. Lilly worked","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"throughout the mine depending on where “they needed equipment.” J.A. 187.","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Burke Mountain miner Shawn Abner testified that he couldn’t recall which entity","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"employed him because “the company changed names so many times”—it “would go from","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"Bluestone Energy back to Tams to Bluestone, Incorporated back to Tams.” J.A. 232, 234.","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"According to Abner, Tams Management, Bluestone Industries, and Bluestone Coal were","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"the “Justice Companies” and were “just flip-flopping the name of the company around.”","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"J.A. 234.","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"C.","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"After the parties rested, the companies moved for judgment as a matter of law,","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"contending that Gautier didn’t produce sufficient evidence to prove that they were a single","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"employer. The district court denied the motion.","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 5 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"6","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"The district court then instructed the jury. One instruction concerned employment","paragraph_id":"para_122","court_paragraph":6},{"text":"loss:","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"If you find 50 or more of the [companies’] full-time employees","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"at the Burke Mountain Mine Complex were not terminated","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"from employment from October 14, 2019 through January","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"11th, 2020, Mr. Gautier next asks you to consider if 50 or more","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"of the [companies’] full-time employees suffered a qualifying","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"reduction in hours.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"J.A. 342.","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"The jury found the companies liable under the WARN Act. It determined that the","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"companies were a single employer. The jury also concluded that the employees suffered","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"an employment loss because the companies terminated 50 or more employees and reduced","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"50 or more employees’ hours. The district court entered judgment for Gautier.","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"D.","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"Post-trial, the companies renewed their motion for judgment as a matter of law. In","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":"a footnote, the companies incorporated the argument made at the close of evidence—that","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"there was insufficient evidence to show they were a single employer. In another footnote,","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"the companies incorporated their original motion for judgment as a matter of law. The","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"renewed motion didn’t otherwise address the single employer issue.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"Alternatively, the companies sought a new trial, arguing that the district court","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"improperly instructed the jury about employment loss, which led to an irreconcilable jury","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"verdict.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"The district court denied relief. This appeal followed.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 6 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"7","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":"III.","paragraph_id":"para_147","court_paragraph":7},{"text":"We begin with whether the companies forfeited their insufficient evidence","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":"argument.","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"A losing party “may only mount a sufficiency-of-the-evidence appeal to a jury","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"verdict after first doing so in a Rule 50(b) motion before the district court.” Wiener v. AXA","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"Equitable Life Ins. Co., 153 F.4th 413, 422 (4th Cir. 2025) (Wiener II). “[A] party does","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"not go far enough by raising a non-specific objection or claim,” and it “must press and not","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"merely intimate the argument during the proceedings before the district court.” In re Under","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 287 (4th Cir. 2014) (quoting Dallas Gas Partners, L.P. v. Prospect","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"Energy Corp., 773 F.3d 148, 157 (5th Cir. 2013)). This rule ensures the lower court is “on","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"notice as to the substance of the issue.” Id. at 288 (quoting Nelson v. Adams USA, Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"529 U.S. 460, 469 (2000)).","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"At the close of the evidence, the companies argued that Gautier hadn’t shown that","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"they were one employer. But in their post-trial motion, the companies merely referenced","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"the argument in two cursory footnotes and didn’t develop it. To its credit, the district court","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":"spotted and addressed the issue.","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"It’s a close call, but we decline to find forfeiture under these facts. To preserve an","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"issue for appeal, we expect far more from litigants than threadbare references to an issue","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"or wholesale incorporation of earlier arguments by footnote. “Judges are not like pigs,","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"hunting for truffles buried in the record,” Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 67 n.7 (2024)","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"(citation modified), and clear, developed advocacy below helps illuminate and refine issues","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"for appeal.","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 7 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"8","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"But because the district court addressed the companies’ argument, we aren’t","paragraph_id":"para_171","court_paragraph":8},{"text":"concerned that it lacked sufficient notice or that we lost the benefit of its analysis.","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"IV.","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"On to the merits.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"“We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo,” Wiener I, 58","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"F.4th at 784, “[b]ut we do so with deference towards the jury’s findings.” Burgess v.","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"Goldstein, 997 F.3d 541, 549 (4th Cir. 2021). When the losing party at trial challenges the","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"verdict, “the question is whether a jury, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"the winning party, could have properly reached the conclusion reached by this jury.”","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"Wiener I, 58 F.4th at 784 (citation modified). We uphold “the jury’s verdict unless the","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"only conclusion a reasonable jury could have reached is one in favor of the moving party.”","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"Younger v. Crowder, 79 F.4th 373, 381 (4th Cir. 2023) (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"To determine whether the companies were one employer for purposes of the WARN","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"Act, we rely on a multi-factor framework to assess “the degree of their independence.” 20","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2); see Pennington, 19 F.4th at 597. “Some of the factors to be","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"considered in making this determination are (i) common ownership, (ii) common directors","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"and/or officers, (iii) de facto exercise of control, (iv) unity of personnel policies emanating","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"from a common source, and (v) the dependency of operations.” 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2).","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"But these aren’t exclusive, and no factor is dispositive.","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 8 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"9","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_192","court_paragraph":9},{"text":"The companies contend that Gautier didn’t introduce enough evidence to prove they","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"were one employer. They maintain that much of the evidence “lacks probative value” or","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"doesn’t pertain to Tams Management specifically. Appellants’ Br. at 24–25.","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"Not so. Gautier introduced multiple pieces of evidence that cumulatively gave the","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"jury enough to conclude that the companies, including Tams Management, lacked","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"independence and functionally operated as the same employer. Gautier presented evidence","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"in support of each Pennington factor.","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"The jury had evidence of common ownership, directors, and officers. State business","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"records showed common directors and officers between Tams Management and some of","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"the companies, including Bluestone Industries: Justice family members served as president","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"and directors of those companies. Multiple employees stated that Jay and Jim Justice","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"owned the companies or they worked for the Justice Companies or the Justice family.","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"Gautier also presented evidence showing de facto exercise of control. Jay and Jim","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"Justice frequently visited the mine; Jay Justice regularly led conference calls about mine","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"operations; and staff sought the Justices’ approval for operational decisions.","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"Salaried managers were Bluestone Industries employees, and they supervised","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"miners paid by the other companies, including Tams Management. A Bluestone Industries","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"manager informed miners paid by Tams Management about the mine’s closure. Several","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"employees, including managers, testified that Tams Management was a subsidiary or","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"department of Bluestone.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 9 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"10","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"The jury also heard evidence showing common personnel policies and operations.","paragraph_id":"para_215","court_paragraph":10},{"text":"The companies’ senior human resources officer testified that the companies exchanged","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"employees and machines, which employees corroborated. The companies shared a","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"common payroll system. The state business records showed that Tams Management had","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"the same business address as Bluestone Industries. And one longtime employee testified","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"that individuals applied for mining jobs at the same place, Bluestone.","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"Our analysis isn’t restricted to the Pennington factors. See 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(2)","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"(listing “[s]ome of the factors to be considered”). Multiple employees testified that they","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"worked generally for the Justices. One longtime employee testified that he didn’t know","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"which entity he worked for because “the company changed names so many times” and was","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"“just flip-flopping [its] name . . . around.” J.A. 232, 234. The employees’ uncertainty and","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"confusion provided additional evidence that in effect the companies operated as the same","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"employer.","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"The district court was correct that the jury had enough evidence to so hold.","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"Next, we address the companies’ argument that affirming the jury’s verdict would","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"alter our precedent.","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"The companies maintain that “[t]he judgment below appears to have been the first","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"time in the 36-year history of the WARN Act . . . to impose indirect liability under the","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"statute on an independent contractor, as opposed to a subsidiary.” Reply Br. at 1. They","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"contend that “the cases where courts have imposed single-employer liability have generally","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"involved the parent companies of wholly owned or closely held subsidiaries” or “certain","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 10 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"11","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"lender-borrower relationships.” Id. (quoting Pennington, 19 F.4th at 597, 599). Neither,","paragraph_id":"para_239","court_paragraph":11},{"text":"they say, is present here.","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"The companies are right that “[i]n the WARN Act context, courts have found direct","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"liability only in two circumstances” and that such cases “generally involve[]” parent-","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"subsidiary relationships. Pennington, 19 F.4th at 597, 599. But we’ve never held that","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"liability isn’t appropriate in other circumstances, and at oral argument, the companies","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"conceded that our precedent doesn’t foreclose liability.","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"We also reject the companies’ concern that affirming this verdict would expand","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"WARN Act liability by permitting plaintiffs to rely exclusively on employees’ subjective","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"impressions. That’s not what occurred here. Gautier introduced multiple forms of","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"evidence, including state business records, company payroll records, and senior officer","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"deposition testimony.","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"Pennington doesn’t support disturbing the jury’s verdict. In that case, “there was","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"no common ownership,” the entities didn’t share any directors or officers, and each","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"company was “responsible for hiring, firing, and paying their own personnel” and for","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"making their own operational decisions. Id. at 597. None are true here.","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"In short, the jury’s verdict doesn’t change our precedent or the legal requirements","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"necessary to prove single employer status under the WARN Act.","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"V.","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"A.","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"We turn to the companies’ request for a new trial to remedy a purportedly erroneous","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"jury instruction.","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 11 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"12","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"“We review challenges to jury instructions for abuse of discretion, bearing in mind","paragraph_id":"para_263","court_paragraph":12},{"text":"that a trial court has broad discretion in framing its instructions to a jury.” Gentry v. E. W.","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"Partners Club Mgmt. Co., 816 F.3d 228, 233 (4th Cir. 2016) (citation modified). “We","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"review de novo whether the district court’s instructions to the jury were correct statements","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"of law.” Id. (citation modified). We only order a new trial if the district court erroneously","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"instructed the jury and that instruction seriously prejudiced the moving party. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"B.","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"The companies contend that the district court erred in instructing the jury about the","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"WARN Act’s employment loss categories. They maintain that the three categories are","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"“mutually exclusive” and that the jury should have “[d]ecid[ed] which of the three actually","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"occurred.” Appellants’ Br. at 27–28. Because the jury found that some employees suffered","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"more than one type of employment loss, the companies argue, the court’s instruction was","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"erroneous.","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"That’s incorrect. In fact, the case on which the companies rely, Leeper v. Hamilton","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"Cnty. Coal, LLC, 939 F.3d 866 (7th Cir. 2019), shows that the district court correctly","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"instructed the jury to consider the employment loss categories independently and","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"alternatively. In Leeper, our sister circuit explained that “Congress specified three separate","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"and distinct categories of employment action in § 2101(a)(6)” and that courts “must respect","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"the choice embodied by that statutory structure.” Id. at 869; see 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(6).","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"That reading makes good sense. Indeed, Congress chose to separate the three","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"employment loss categories with the word “or,” which is “almost always disjunctive, and","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 12 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"13","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"is generally used to indicate an alternative.” Campos-Chaves v. Garland, 602 U.S. 447,","paragraph_id":"para_286","court_paragraph":13},{"text":"457 (2024) (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"The companies hint at the notion that the jury verdict is inconsistent. Why? Because","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"the jury found “both that 50 or more of the 91 affected employees had been terminated,","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"and that 50 or more of the same group had suffered a reduction in hours.” Reply Br. at 11.","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"This outcome is inconsistent, they say, because it’s “not possible for 91 persons to sustain","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"100 injuries, when none could legally suffer more than one.” Id.","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"Generally, “the proper remedy for an inconsistent jury verdict is a new trial.”","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"Talkington v. Atria Reclamelucifers Fabrieken BV, 152 F.3d 254, 261 (4th Cir. 1998). But","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"“failure to bring any purported inconsistencies in the jury’s verdict to the attention of the","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"court prior to the release of the jury will constitute a [forfeiture] of a party’s right to seek a","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"new trial.” White v. Celotex Corp., 878 F.2d 144, 146 (4th Cir. 1989).","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"When asked at oral argument whether they preserved their inconsistent jury verdict","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"claim, the companies said they had by objecting to the jury instruction about employment","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"loss at trial. But they conflate their erroneous jury instruction and inconsistent jury verdict","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"arguments. The record shows the companies forfeited the latter.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"The companies didn’t object to the jury verdict after the district court read it. So","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"they forfeited their right to request a new trial on that ground. And they can’t now revive","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"the argument by recasting it as a problem with the jury instructions.","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 13 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"14","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"* * *","paragraph_id":"para_307","court_paragraph":14},{"text":"Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Gautier, the jury had sufficient","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"evidence to find that the companies were a single employer under the WARN Act. And","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"the district court’s jury instruction about employment loss was proper.","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"The district court’s judgment is therefore","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"AFFIRMED.","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"USCA4 Appeal: 24-1401 Doc: 45 Filed: 01/02/2026 Pg: 14 of 14","paragraph_id":"para_313"}],"word_count":3230,"cites":["529 U.S. 460","603 U.S. 43","602 U.S. 447","3 F.4th 95","19 F.4th 589","58\nF.4th 774","153 F.4th 413","749 F.3d 276","773 F.3d 148","997 F.3d 541","79 F.4th 373","816 F.3d 228","939 F.3d 866","152 F.3d 254","878 F.2d 144"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"1812d3538a3af817421c038aa5aa1126ea3e9cc7234316dd117257ea33d32492","source_url":"https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01401/pdf/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01401-0.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-14T23:15:08.52+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","neighbors":[],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"1812d3538a3af817421c038aa5aa1126ea3e9cc7234316dd117257ea33d32492","recomputed_sha256":"1812d3538a3af817421c038aa5aa1126ea3e9cc7234316dd117257ea33d32492","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-21T04:37:19.244Z"}},"hash":"sha256:c7719b3193970e98ed938186d1b9f8cc014cfb2d186f0250a7cdcdc8e4561f66","version":"legal-2026-10-20","expires":"2026-10-22T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T21:45:12","content_hash":"sha256:c7719b3193970e98ed938186d1b9f8cc014cfb2d186f0250a7cdcdc8e4561f66","revalidate_after":"2026-10-21T05:37:19.327Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca4-24-1401-2026-01-02","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-a907f4e33c7f1784dea2b2956e10917a","response_hash":"sha256:c7719b3193970e98ed938186d1b9f8cc014cfb2d186f0250a7cdcdc8e4561f66"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-04T05:50:37.847Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca4-24-1401-2026-01-02&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":13968}}