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

Temporary Furloughs May Trigger California WARN Act Notice Obligations

A California Court of Appeals has held that temporary furloughs trigger notice obligations under the California Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (CA-WARN). Specifically, the appellate court in The International Brotherhood of Boilermakers v. NASSCO Holdings Inc., decided that employees were entitled to 60 days’ notice of termination under CA-WARN after the employer temporarily furloughed more than 50 employees within a 30-day period at a single worksite in California.1

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.

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.

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.

A WARN Act Refresher Course.

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.

Third Circuit Clarifies the “Faltering Company” Exception to Notice Requirements of the WARN Act.

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.
    SORT ARTICLES
  • No Subtopics.