Clio Holdings Bankruptcy 2020 Bentley-Ladehoff complaint | Page 8

Case 20-10080-BLS 22. Doc 5 Filed 01/16/20 Page 8 of 15 Pursuant to WARN Act 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5), the Plaintiffs maintain this claim on behalf of each of the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees and for his or her benefit. 23. Each of the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees is similarly situated to the Plaintiffs in respect to his or her rights under the WARN Act. 24. The Plaintiffs and the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees were discharged by Defendants, without cause on their part. 25. The Plaintiffs and each of the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees are “affected employees" within the meaning of WARN Act 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(5). 26. Defendants were required by the WARN Act to give the Plaintiffs and the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees at least sixty (60) days prior written notice of their respective terminations. 27. Prior to their termination, neither the Plaintiffs nor the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees received written notice that complied with the requirements of the WARN Act. 28. Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiffs and the Other Similarly Situated Former Employees their respective wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay and accrued vacation for sixty (60) calendar days following their respective terminations and failed to make the 401(k) contributions and provide health insurance coverage and other employee benefits under ERISA in respect to them for sixty (60) calendar days from and after the dates of their respective terminations. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS RULE 7023 (a) and (b) 29. The Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and the Other Similarly 8