workers to successfully compete in the job market. 20 C.F.R. § 639.1. The full 60-day notice period is not required if the closing is “caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required.” 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A). In order to qualify for the UBC exception, the defendant must prove two elements: (A) that the circumstances complained of were unforeseeable; and (B) that the circumstances complained of actually caused the mass layoff or plant shutdown. See Calloway v. Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., 800 F.3d 244, 251 (6th Cir.2015). The burden is on the employer to show that the statutory exception applies. 20 C.F.R. § 639.9; see In re Advanced Accessory Systems, LLC, 443 B.R. 756, 766 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.2011) (<HOLDING>). The UBC exception is not narrowly construed.
holding plaintiffs ultimate burden of proof can be met by combining proof submitted in its prima facie case with evidence that defendants proffered reasons for its acts were false holding employer satisfied its burden of production holding that former employer met its burden of proof that ubc exception applied holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant recognizing plaintiff met this burden