In Roquet V

Multiple Choice

In Roquet v. Arthur Anderson , the plaintiffs sued for an alleged violation of the WARN Act s notification provisions. Arthur Anderson defended by saying that they should not be held to the 60 day requirement because of the particular business circumstances in this case. The court said that:

A) the 60 notice obligation is eliminated if the layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not probably foreseeable
B) the 60 notice obligation is eliminated if the layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable
C) the moment the Department of Justice informed the defendant that they were considering an indictment, the defendant had the obligation to notify its employees of the inevitable layoffs
D) when a company s felonious misconduct is the cause of its financial difficulties, this negates the exception to the WARN notification requirements, and the company cannot claim that they were trying to avoid layoffs or fighting to stay afloat