"Even if they can't show Solvay's omission was intentional, the employees argue they can show the company engaged in 'egregious' misconduct because it knew of the defect in its 204(h) notice long ago and failed to correct it promptly.... The district court found that Solvay didn't discover its failure until after this litigation began. And nothing suggests that finding was clearly erroneous.... [T]he employees might be entitled to other equitable remedies the district court's findings do not otherwise foreclose. But we just don't know whether that's the case.... The employees may secretly harbor a wish for some form of equitable relief not foreclosed by the district court's findings, but they have yet to identify it to anyone else after six-and-a-half years of litigation and to know that much is to know it is time to call this matter to a close." [Jensen, Goff, et al. v. Solvay, No. 11-8092 (10th Cir. July 2, 2013)]

MORE >>