production, which would lead to a mass layoff or shutdown. Plaintiffs argue that by failing to issue this conditional notice, Defendant did not “even try to comply with the WARN Act.” However, Plaintiffs misinterpret the relevant regulation, which provides: Notice may be given conditional upon the occurrence or nonoccurrence of an event, such as the renewal of a major contract, only when the event is definite and the consequences of its occurrence or nonoccurrence will necessarily, in the normal course of business, lead to a covered plant closing or mass layoff less than 60 days after the event. 20 C.F.R. § 639.7 (emphasis added). The regulation clearly permits conditional notice, but does not require it. See Loehrer v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 98 F.3d 1056, 1063, n. 9 (8th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons,
holding that causation is an essential element in failure to warn claim holding that fifra preempts state law failure to warn claims holding that a failure to circulate conditional notice can not in itself justify the imposition of warn liability holding that defense may only be raised in context of negligent failure to warn claims holding that a failure to warn was not a policy judgment