UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-60350
Summary Calendar
ROCKY D. WATTS; RUTH HOLCOMB; DAMON STEGALL;
ANTHONY ECHOLS; JOSEPH M. FUQUA,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
VERSUS
SHAW CREEK INC, also known as Village Creek Inc, doing business
as All Creek Holdings Inc; VILLAGE CREEK INC; ALL CREEK HOLDINGS
INC; MARCO INC; APPLEWOOD FURNITURE INDUSTRIES INC, formerly
known as All Creek holdings Inc; MARCO HOLDINGS L.P.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(3:95-CV-88)
March 23, 1999
Before DAVIS, DUHÉ, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Defendants/Appellants challenge the percentage reduction used
by the district court under the good faith exception to the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act. 29 U.S.C. §
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
1
2101 et seq. Specifically, appellants contend that the district
court’s decision to reduce the damage award by only 50% after a
finding of “good faith” on appellant’s part was clear error.
Under § 2104(a)(4) of the WARN Act, a court has discretion to
reduce the amount of liability an employer owes upon a finding that
the employer’s act or omission in violating the Act was done in
good faith. See 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(4). This is a discretionary
function of the district court, and absent an abuse of discretion,
we will not disturb the district court’s rulings on the issue.
Appellants arguments for a finding of clear error are
misplaced. We conduct a clear error review on fact findings such
as the court’s assessment of whether or not the employer acted in
good faith in the first place. See Carpenters Dist. Council v.
Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 15 F.3d 1275, 1287 (5th Cir.1994). In
the case at bar, appellant’s understandably do not challenge the
district court’s fact finding that they had acted in good faith.
Instead, they challenge the court’s discretionary decision to only
reduce the award by 50%. After a careful review of the record, we
do not find any abuse of the district court’s powers in this
discretionary matter.
In Appellant’s brief under “Statement of the Issue,” they also
seek a review of the district court’s grant of attorney fees and
prejudgment interest. However, within the brief itself there are
no supporting arguments, authorities, or citations to the record.
We have repeatedly held that we will not consider issues not
briefed by the parties. See Johnson v. Sawyer, 120 F.3d 1307, 1315
2
(5th Cir.1997). In any event, even if this issue had been
presented properly, we find no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s grant of attorney fees and prejudgment interest. See 29
U.S.C. § 2104(a)(6); Carpenters, 15 F.3d at 1288.
The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
3