A worker laid off by the bankrupt Interstate Plumbing & Air Conditioning LLC of Las Vegas filed a class-action lawsuit against the company Thursday, charging it violated federal law when it laid off she and hundreds of others without 60 days’ notice.
Interstate, weighed down by $40.5 million in debt and other liabilities and struggling during the recession, and some affiliated companies filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation Sept. 23.
Thursday’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Las Vegas, says that under the WARN Act, or the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, some 300 Interstate employees between Aug. 8 and Aug. 19 were "terminated without cause and without receiving 60-day advance notice of termination."
In all, Interstate Plumbing employed about 375 people at its corporate headquarters at 7201 W. Post Road in Las Vegas, the lawsuit says.
The suit seeks to recover for eligible workers 60 days’ pay and benefits, along with attorney’s fees.
The lead plaintiff is Eve Borton, identified as an office assistant. She’s represented by the San Diego law firm Wingert Grebing Brubaker & Juskie LLP and by Las Vegas attorney Jay Kenyon.
Also named as defendants in the lawsuit are Interstate Acquisitions LLC, identified as Interstate’s parent company; and Pipewrench II Inc., identified as the parent of Interstate Acquisitions.
Also sued were Sankaty Advisors LLC, identified as the collateral agent for Pipewrench; and G2 Capital Advisors, a company said to have provided interim management for Interstate.
A request for comment was placed with Interstate’s bankruptcy attorney.
A similar lawsuit alleging WARN Act violations is pending against the Nevada Cancer Institute over a mass layoff there in April.
In that situation, the Cancer Institute did not file for bankruptcy.
In denying it violated the WARN Act, the Cancer Institute said it was exempted from issuing a WARN Act notice because of "unforeseeable business circumstances" and by the act’s "faltering business" exception.
The judge in that case has not yet ruled on whether the Cancer Institute was exempted by these circumstances.