## Facts

- Shapiro Bros. Shoe Co., a shoe manufacturer with 100+ employees, decided to cease operations.
- On January 23, 1973, Shapiro posted notice stating it would end shoe manufacturing on February 22, 1973.
- Shapiro actually stopped operations on February 5, 1973, providing less than one month’s notice.
- A Maine statute (26 M.R.S.A. § 625, then in effect) required employers with 100+ employees to give one month’s notice before voluntarily going out of business, or pay severance to eligible employees (one week per year of employment, subject to limits).
- On March 2, 1973, the union’s attorney demanded severance under the statute and stated suit would be filed promptly absent resolution.
- Shapiro filed an action for declaratory and injunctive relief on March 16, 1973; three laid-off employees were later added as defendants.
- While the case was pending, the Legislature repealed and replaced part of § 625, effective October 3, 1973.
- The case was submitted on a reported record with agreed facts under Maine procedure.

## Issues

1. Whether the statutory amendment during litigation mooted the constitutional challenge to the earlier version of § 625 as applied to Shapiro’s 1973 shutdown.
2. Whether requiring severance pay for employees upon a large employer’s voluntary closure exceeded the police power or violated substantive due process/freedom of contract.
3. Whether § 625 was unconstitutionally vague as applied to terms such as “voluntarily going out of business” and the notice obligation.
4. Whether limiting the statute to employers with 100+ employees and to voluntary closures violated equal protection by irrational discrimination.

## Decision

- The court held the case was not moot because Shapiro’s potential obligations accrued under the pre-amendment statute based on events occurring before the amendment’s effective date.
- The court upheld the severance/notice provisions as a valid exercise of the police power reasonably related to alleviating economic hardship from sudden, large-scale job loss.
- The court rejected the vagueness challenge, concluding the statute provided adequate notice of what conduct triggered notice or severance obligations in the context of civil economic regulation.
- The court rejected the equal protection challenge, holding the employer-size and voluntary-closure classifications were rationally related to mitigating greater economic dislocation from large voluntary shutdowns.
- Shapiro was denied declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of § 625 as it applied to the shutdown.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory amendments do not moot a challenge where liabilities or duties under the earlier statute allegedly accrued before the amendment took effect.
- Economic and labor regulations satisfy substantive due process if they bear a reasonable relation to a legitimate public-welfare objective within the police power.
- Civil regulatory statutes are not void for vagueness if their operative terms give regulated parties fair notice and workable guidance in context.
- Classifications in economic legislation are reviewed under rational-basis principles; a legislature may address a problem incrementally and may target large employers and voluntary closures if reasonably connected to the statute’s purpose.

## Conclusion

Maine may constitutionally require large employers that voluntarily cease operations to provide advance notice or severance pay to mitigate the economic effects of abrupt shutdowns; the statute survived mootness, due process, vagueness, and equal protection challenges as applied to Shapiro’s closure.


Shapiro Bros. Shoe Co. v. Lewiston-Auburn Shoeworkers Protective Ass'n, Inc., 320 A.2d 247 (Me. 1974)