Bankrupt solar manufacturer Solyndra Inc. is headed to court following its week in the congressional limelight, to face charges that its executives failed to give more than 1,000 fired employees proper notice and benefits before abruptly letting them go.

The California-based company is in the cross hairs this week for a $527 million loan guarantee from the Energy Department, allegations that executives profited from political connections and suggestions that they may have hid the truth about the company's finances from the Obama administration prior to its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. But a second headache awaits in the form of a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit, filed by former Solyndra engineer Peter Kohlstadt on behalf of the laid-off employees, alleges that Solyndra violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act -- or WARN Act -- when it failed to give the workers 60 days notice before laying them off.

The WARN Act says companies in the process of firing more than 100 employees have to give the workers two months' notice and pay associated compensation. This can include unpaid wages, commissions, bonuses, vacation pay, 401K contributions and COBRA benefits.

The suit was filed in bankruptcy court in Delaware and seeks "first priority administrative expense status" pursuant to U.S. Bankruptcy Code. That means lawyers for the employees intend to argue that the workers should be compensated first when and if the company restructures, putting them at the front of an increasingly long line of venture investors and federal taxpayers who feel bilked -- assuming there is any cash left to refund.

Lawyers representing the employees refused to comment on the case, as did Kohlstadt, who did not return emails seeking comment. Disgruntled employees interviewed by California media outlets have said Solyndra executives were operating as if business was full steam ahead until news of the bankruptcy leaked on Aug. 31, when many employees first heard they no longer had jobs through the press.

A comment from Matthew Henry, a Solyndra employee for three years, reported in the Oakland Tribune was typical.

"It was devastating. There was no warning at all," Henry told the newspaper. "It was completely unexpected for myself and the other employees."

At Solyndra, the company maintains it deserves an exception from the WARN Act because it was trying to secure financing to keep the company afloat up until the bankruptcy proceeding was first initiated. The WARN Act, signed into law in 1988, does include exemptions for "faltering" companies that are seeking new capital or loans in good faith to keep their doors open for business.

"We have stated that we were working up until the final hours to try to get financing," said David Miller, a Solyndra spokesman.

Tony Paris, lead attorney at the Detroit-based Sugar Law Center, said the employees have a relatively steep hill to climb under the WARN Act because there are exceptions written into the law. That said, Paris believes the burden of proof to show evidence of the faltering exception will fall on Solyndra, which means attorneys will have to show extensive documentation of the company's financial activities leading up to the bankruptcy.

"The requirement of what they're going to have to show to prove the faltering company status, it's not necessarily an easy thing," Paris said. "It shifts the burden to the company."

Paris, who described his organization as a workers' rights center, added that companies in Solyndra's position often make the decision to ignore compliance with the WARN Act because there are no penalties associated with breaking it, other than having to pay employees what they might have deserved in the first place.

"We see this all the time," he said. "The cost to the company of complying with the WARN Act is greater than breaking it."

Paris also said he supports active legislation from Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) that would strengthen the law.

"As the law stands now, the workers are really going to have to show they were blindsided," he said.

Click here to see the class-action suit.