The opinion of the court was delivered by: MALCOLM MUIR
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
The Union is the exclusive collective bargaining representative of approximately 250 production and maintenance workers who had been employed at North Star's plant located in Milton, Pennsylvania. North Star produced hot rolled steel bars and other steel products at that facility and employed a total of approximately 310 people.
On February 24, 1992, the Union filed a motion for summary judgment supported by admissions of North Star and by affidavits of Union members who had been employed by North Star. In its response to that motion, North Star conceded that its actions constituted a "technical" violation of § 2102(a) of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. By order dated April 9, 1992, we granted the Union's motion for summary judgment and instructed the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the Union on the issue of liability.
Presently before the Court is the Union's motion for summary judgment on damages. That motion, a brief in support, and a so-called "supplemental" affidavit were filed on September 30, 1992. After receiving two extensions of time within which to file its brief in opposition to the Union's motion, North Star timely filed its brief on October 30, 1992. The Union also received two extensions of time to file a reply and one was punctually filed on December 4, 1992. The matter is now ripe for disposition.
The standard for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is well settled. Summary judgment is appropriate only when there is no genuine issue of material fact which is unresolved and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P.56(c). The United States Supreme Court has stated that in motions for summary judgment a material fact is one which might affect the outcome of the suit under relevant substantive law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 ,106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986).
Initially, the moving party has a burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 ,106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986). The non-moving party then must make a sufficient showing as to the essential elements of his or her case that a reasonable jury could find in his or her favor. Id. at 322-23. We will apply that standard to the Union's motion for summary judgment on damages.
With respect to damages, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act states that an employer who fails to provide written notice 60 days in advance of a plant closing or a mass layoff
shall be liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss as a result of such closing or layoff for
(A) back pay for each day of violation at a rate of compensation not less than the higher of-
(i) the average regular rate received by such employee during the last three years of the ...