join our network! affiliate login  
Custom Search
GET OUR FREE EMAIL NEWSLETTERS!
Daily and Weekly Editions • Articles • Alerts • Expert Advice • Learn More

Total Articles: 10

Supreme Court Gives WARN-ing To Companies In Bankruptcy: Don’t Ignore Wage Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in a 6 to 2 decision that “structured dismissals” resolving Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings cannot deviate from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme without the consent of the affected parties – which means that businesses must ensure workers receive their unpaid wages as part of any such resolution. Specifically, the Court rejected a structured dismissal that left a group of WARN Act plaintiffs without any compensation, telling employers, essentially, that they must squeeze blood from a stone to compensate their workers.

WARN Act and Oil Field Rightsizing: Court Finds Layoff Does Not Require Notice

In a recent case involving the layoff of employees assigned to land drilling rigs, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas limited the ability of plaintiffs to claim that multiple rigs collectively form a “single site of employment” under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).

Layoffs Without WARN-ing: How to Use the Unforeseeable Business Circumstance Exception

A recent federal trial court decision out of Delaware, In re AE Liquidation, Inc. v. Burtch, No. 14-1492-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016), illustrates how, even in the context of a very troubled business, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act’s “unforeseeable business circumstance exception” (UBC) still may be used as a defense to WARN liability.

Layoffs Without WARN-ing: How to Use the Unforeseeable Business Circumstance Exception

A recent federal trial court decision out of Delaware, In re AE Liquidation, Inc. v. Burtch, No. 14-1492-LPS (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2016), illustrates how, even in the context of a very troubled business, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act’s “unforeseeable business circumstance exception” (UBC) still may be used as a defense to WARN liability.

Is an Offshore Rig a Single Site of Employment Under WARN?

A federal judge in the Eastern District of Louisiana recently issued an important ruling for oil field employers conducting layoffs. In Voisin v. Axxis Drilling, Inc. (October 21, 2015), the court held that for the purposes of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act), each offshore rig is a single “site of employment.” Plaintiffs’ lawyers have filed multiple class actions alleging that a dispatch or administrative office from which work is assigned is a single site of employment for purposes of triggering the WARN Act. Judge Feldman’s ruling blocks that theory.

A WARN Act Roundup: Jury Trial Rights, the Unforeseen Business Circumstances Defense, and the Single Employer Rule

Towards the end of 2014, three federal courts explored developing issues under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2109 et. seq. Below is a summary of three notable cases that employers may find helpful if contemplating a reduction in force.

A WARN Case Study: Are Workers on Layoff "Employees" and the Hidden Dangers of Exposing Controlled Groups to Liability

Last week the U.S. District Court in Cleveland issued a decision that, once again reminds us in two ways how devilishly tricky the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act can be when determining what is a covered employer and who is liable for a violation of the Act. Blough v. Voisard Manufacturing, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9267, 1:14 CV 263 (N.D. Ohio, Jan. 27, 2015).

Legal Alert: Sequestration Arrives With Federal Contractors Still Facing WARN Act Uncertainties

Executive Summary: March 1 has arrived without a budget compromise in Washington, DC. Barring a last minute deal before midnight tonight, across-the-board federal budget cuts are expected to go into effect. For employers, this will bring with it a variety of direct and indirect consequences, including automatic cuts to the budgets of various federal agencies with workplace oversight and enforcement responsibilities. The most significant impact is expected to be on employers doing business with the federal government, particularly contractors with sizeable workforces servicing federal contracts. In the coming weeks a host of employment law issues may be implicated for contractors, some of which do not have the clearest answers.

Employment Law Made Un-Scary: WARN

Everything you ever wanted to know about the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act in one handy post.

Firing replacement workers to allow striking employees to return is not a "mass layoff" under WARN Act.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act requires a 60-day notice to employees before a “mass layoff” can take place. A mass layoff is a reduction in force which is not the result of a plant closure, but which results in an employment loss of at least 50 full-time employees at a single site. While the WARN Act does not specifically define “workforce reduction,” federal courts have determined that an employee is part of such reduction when that employee is not replaced after layoff or discharge. The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied on that interpretation of the term “workforce reduction” when it determined that 111 replacement workers - who ultimately were fired to allow a company’s original employees to return from strike - were not entitled to a 60-day mass layoff notice prior to their firings.