Former Call Center Workers Say CIT Has Authority to Order Labor to Grant Trade Adjustment Aid
The Court of International Trade has the authority to order the Labor Department to certify that former AT&T call center employees are eligible for Trade Adjustment Assistance benefits, the former employees said in a June 23 brief. Responding to the court's request for further briefing on the issue of the court's authority, the plaintiffs said that the statutory text, purpose, history and practice all reveal that the court has doled out similar relief in the past and that the trade court can indeed issue the posited relief despite the lack of a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Former Employees of AT&T Services, Through Communications Workers of America Local 4123 v. United States, CIT #20-00075).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The union launched its case when it was denied aid over a series of call centers that were allegedly outsourced to foreign countries. Former call center employees from Kalamazoo, Michigan; Indianapolis; and Appleton, Wisconsin, gave Labor evidence that the call center jobs were relocated to Mexico and Jamaica. In May, the trade court initially remanded the case over Labor's failure to look at the plaintiffs' evidence (see 2105040032).
On remand, Hope Kinglock, a certifying officer with Labor's Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, looked at the evidence and continued to find that the employees weren't entitled to the aid (see 2107230031). In the case's second opinion, Judge M. Miller Baker said Kinglock's reconsideration of the evidence addressed this deficiency in Labor's original determination. However, the judge still remanded the case over Labor's reliance on unverified email communications (see 2109230075). On remand, Labor further defended its reliance on the email communications (see 2203180040).
Baker then requested further briefing over whether the court can order Labor to certify the plaintiffs as eligible for the adjustment aid. In a supplemental brief, the plaintiffs said the court could do so based on "the statutory scheme." Citing the 1984 Federal Circuit case Jarvis Clark Co. v. U.S., the plaintiffs said that the statute gives the court the discretion to find whether it should remand the case for further proceedings or reach the correct decision on its own.
"The Court may therefore properly hold, after a review of the record and applicable law, that Plaintiffs warrant certification," the brief said. "The Court should take that step at this juncture, given Labor’s failure to align its conclusions with governing law and the record facts." Further, the statute permits the court to "order any form of relief that it deems appropriate under the circumstances," the plaintiffs said. "By its unambiguous terms, this broad grant of authority permits the Court to provide the posited remedy, which would simply direct Labor to take administrative steps to implement the correct decision."