Selena Staley, et al. v. Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts, et al.

New York, New York, employment law lawyers represented the Plaintiff who sued ona orker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and breach of contract theories.



A class action lawsuit filed in August 2022 on behalf of former employees of the Four Seasons Hotel in midtown Manhattan, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and breach of contract after being furloughed for over six months. The suit claims the extended furlough constitutes a permanent layoff, entitling the plaintiffs to no-fault separation pay and proper termination notice, which the hotel allegedly failed to provide. The case was heard in the Southern District of New York and involved disputes over arbitration clauses, with the Second Circuit affirming the denial of the defendants' motion to compel arbitration. As of September 2025, the case was dismissed with prejudice by the District Court, with the Clerk directed to enter final judgment.

Key details of the case:



Plaintiffs:

Lead plaintiffs Selena Staley, Vivian Holmes, and Olive Ivey.



Defendants:

FSR International Hotel Inc. (doing business as Four Seasons Hotels and Resorts), along with the LLCs that own and operate the hotel, and the LLCs' CEO.

Claims:



Violation of federal and state WARN Act statutes, requiring notice before a mass layoff.



Breach of a contract providing for no-fault separation pay after a permanent layoff.



Allegations:

The plaintiffs allege their furlough, which extended beyond six months, amounted to a "permanent layoff," triggering their right to severance pay and termination notice.

Procedural History:



The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on August 9, 2022.



The defendants' motion to compel arbitration was denied by the District Court and the denial was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

On September 4, 2025, the District Court dismissed the action with prejudice, directing the Clerk to enter final judgment.

Motion for Reconsideration. After the Court dismissed this case for lack of standing on September 4, 2025, see ECF No. 198, the plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, see ECF No. 201. For the reasons set forth in the defendant's opposition brief, see ECF No. 204, the motion for reconsideration is hereby denied. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/1/2025) (ks) (Entered: 10/01/2025)