Today a Dallas federal court found that the WARN Act did not apply to drilling land rigs aggregated within a particular region. A Dallas firm has sued several drilling companies claiming proper WARN notice was not provided to laid off oilfield workers. The court did not rule on whether the rigs could be aggregated with a local yard or the local office to reach the minimum threshold of 50 employees. The case will likely be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, so stay tuned.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
14 March 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Brainwaves: 100 Days and Beyond | Presidential Policy Shifts Impacting Automotive
In a recent Brainwaves event hosted by the Society of Automotive Analysts and Foley & Lardner LLP, titled “100 Days and Beyond: Presidential Policy Shifts Impacting Automotive,” business and legal executives gathered in Detroit to discuss the significant shifts in presidential policies and their profound impact on the automotive sector.
13 March 2025
Foley Ignite
New Opportunities and Challenges for Board Directors
Foley & Lardner LLP recently co-hosted a webinar with the National Association of Corporate Directors to discuss how a new presidential administration and evolving state-driven regulations are effecting boardrooms.
12 March 2025
Health Care Law Today
Compounded GLP-1 Drugs: Texas Judge Denies PI Motion and Request for Stay of FDA’s Declaration that Tirzepatide Shortage is Resolved; Plaintiff OFA Appeals
On March 5, 2025, one U.S. District Court ruled unequivocally in the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) favor in the case, Outsourcing Facilities Ass’n, et. al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Admin., et. al., 4:24-cv-0953-P, slip op., 2025 WL 746028, at *15 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2025), denying plaintiffs’ motion for (1) a preliminary injunction (PI) prohibiting the FDA from taking action against Outsourcing Facilities Association (OFA) members and FarmaKeio based on their compounding of the drug ingredient tirzepatide pending final judgment in the case and (2) a stay pending conclusion of the review proceedings in response to the FDA’s declaration that the shortage of the diabetes and weight-loss tirzepatide products has been resolved.