|
|
|
 Article Index » warn and worker dislocation: 10 Most Recent Articles Report Link Drastic Changes to WARN Contemplated in "Forewarn Act" Bill.Jackson Lewis LLP - July 07, 2009 Both houses of Congress have introduced bills that would amend drastically the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the federal law that requires employers to provide at least 60 calendar days’ advance written notice of “plant closings” and “mass layoffs.” The proposed “Federal Oversight, Reform, and Enforcement of the WARN Act” (“Forewarn Act”) not only would increase the number of employers subject to WARN and increase the number of entities and individuals who must receive WARN notices, but also would require employers to provide 90 days of WARN notices, instead of 60, prohibit waivers of WARN rights unless supervised by the U.S. Department of Labor or the attorney general of a state, and create an administrative enforcement scheme in addition to the existing judicial enforcement scheme, giving the DOL the authority to investigate and prosecute alleged WARN violations. Report Link Preparing for Reductions-In-Force by Understanding the WARN Act.Elarbee, Thompson, Sapp & Wilson, LLP. - April 28, 2009 The current state of the economy has affected employers nationwide by causing a widespread recent increase in mass reductions-in-force. In February 2009 alone, 2,769 mass reductions-in-force occurred, which affected 295,000 workers (seasonally adjusted), according to statistics released by the Labor Department. As employers prepare for a reduction-in-force, they must consider the ramifications to minimize their potential for legal liability under the WARN Act. Report Link A WARN Act Refresher Course.Fisher & Phillips, LLP - April 07, 2009 As the steady drumbeat of grim economic news continues, more and more employers are forced to face the unpleasant prospect of laying off valued employees to survive. When times are tough, the last thing a struggling business needs is a class-action lawsuit claiming that the former employees are entitled to 60 days' additional pay under federal or state law. Report Link Fair WARNing for These Harsh Economic Times.Constangy, Brooks & Smith, LLP - March 09, 2009 As this Bulletin went to press, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was below 6700, and approximately 6.5 million people are currently unemployed. Given the dire state of our economy, this appears to be an opportune time to review employer obligations under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. Report Link Unforeseen Business Circumstances May Relieve Company of WARN Obligation.Ogletree Deakins - February 12, 2009 The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act generally requires that companies of 100 or more employees provide advance notice of plant closings. The purpose of such notice is to allow employees some time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, and to seek other jobs or retraining. The WARN Act requires 60 days written notice before a closing or mass layoff by covered employers. Companies that violate the Act are liable for back pay and benefits for each day that the required notice is not provided, up to a 60 day maximum. Report Link Federal Court Finds Employer Not Liable for Sudden Layoff under WARN.Jackson Lewis LLP - February 05, 2009 An employer satisfied the “unforeseeable business circumstances” exception under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) when it implemented a layoff just days after losing its biggest customer, the federal appellate court in Denver has held. Gross v. Hale Halsell Co., No. 08-5028 (10th Cir. Jan. 20, 2009). WARN’s unforeseeable business circumstances exception applied because the customer’s withdrawal, and the attendant 40 percent loss in potential business, was not reasonably foreseeable, the Court concluded, affirming a lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the employer. Report Link When Laws Collide: U.S. Attorney’s Office Addresses Tax Consequences of Paying Wages to a Bankruptcy Trustee.Ogletree Deakins - December 04, 2008 The Friday, October 10, 2008, edition of The State newspaper (Columbia, South Carolina) carried an article about the possible Wells Fargo-Wachovia merger. The article stated the merger could cause “major job cuts.” In an economic downturn such as the current one, employees are going to suffer job losses. Any employment attorney will tell you that will result in more employment-related lawsuits being filed by former employees against their former employers. Any bankruptcy attorney will tell you that will result in increased bankruptcy filings. But what happens when these two areas of the law intersect? What are the consequences if a third area of the law is introduced into the mix, such as the federal tax laws? In such a three-way collision, the legal consequences can be difficult to ascertain. Report Link Third Circuit Clarifies the “Faltering Company” Exception to Notice Requirements of the WARN Act.Ogletree Deakins - September 11, 2008 The purpose of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act is to protect workers by requiring advance notice of plant closings. Such notice allows workers some time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, and to seek other jobs or retraining. The WARN Act requires generally 60 days’ written notice before a closing or mass layoff by covered employers (typically, those with at least 100 full-time employees at a site). Companies that violate the Act are liable for back pay and benefits for each day that the required notice is not provided, up to the 60 day maximum. Report Link WARN Act Protects Entitlement to Compensation, Not Work, Fourth Circuit Rules.Jackson Lewis LLP - November 21, 2007 Faced with a relatively common sale-of-business scenario, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond has ruled that a sporting goods manufacturer did not violate the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act when it shut down a facility, provided 60 days of notice to affected employees, told employees not to report to work and continued to provide pay and benefits during the next 60 days to all but 22 of the plant's 350 employees. Report Link Construction Workers’ WARN Act Claims Denied: Site of Employment Was Actual Construction Site, not Corporate Headquarters.Ford & Harrison LLP - September 14, 2007 The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the decision of a federal trial court denying former construction workers’ claims that their termination violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The Court held that the workers were not covered by WARN because they did not demonstrate that 50 or more laid-off employees worked at a single site of employment.
|
ArticlesFound: 10 ArticlesNO SUBTOPICSEmployment Law Seminars
Employment Law 101 for HR Professionals
Las Vegas
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplyNewport Beach
March 23, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Francisco
March 23, 2010 Fisher & Phillips2010 Public Sexual Harassment Training for supervisors and managers.Glendale
March 23, 2010 Ballard Rosenberg2010 Employment Law UpdateSan Jose
March 23, 2010 LittlerHow to Prepare a Response to a DFEH/EEOC ChargeWebinar
March 23, 2010 Shaw ValenzaTOP 10 TIPS FOR CREATING A BLOGGING, SOCIAL MEDIA AND CELL PHONE POLICYOnline
March 23, 2010 HR Learning Center LLCNegotiating Your Business to the TopOrlando
March 23, 2010 Ford & HarrisonCalifornia Legally Required Sexual Harassment Training: It's Never Too Late To ComplySan Diego
March 24, 2010 Fisher & PhillipsEmployment Law Breakfast Briefings`Kenner
March 24, 2010 Fisher & Phillips |
|
| ||
|
Terms of Use
|
Privacy
|
Advertising
|
About
|
Contact
|
For Law Firms
|
Partners
Copyright © 2010 elinfonet.com, llc.
The use of this site, and the terms and conditions for our providing information, is governed by our Terms of Use, including the disclaimers contained therein. By using this site, you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Use and that you accept and will be bound by the terms thereof.
This site is designed for lawyers concentrating in employment law and human resource professionals who specialize in employee relations. As more fully set forth in the terms of use, the information provided on or through this site is for general information purposes; it is not a determination of your legal rights, nor your responsibilities under the law. None of the information contained on this site is, or should be construed as, legal advice. The information should not be relied upon for legal advice. We are not engaged in the practice of law and no attorney-client relationship is being created. Any information communicated to any lawyer via this site does not have the confidentiality protection of the attorney/client privilege. If you are seeking legal advice, find a qualified lawyer in your area. If you need help finding a lawyer, call your local, county or state bar association. All logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owners. | ||
Federal Article Feeds