Manufacturing employers are facing more uncertainty than ever as the threats of reciprocal tariffs and supply shortages loom. Reductions in force may appear to be the most expedient solution but competing federal and state regulations may challenge that notion.
Articles Discussing WARN, The Worker Adjustment And Retraining Notification Act.
Employer Reactions to Federal Funding Freeze Could Have WARN Act Consequences
TakeawaysEmployers must be aware of the WARN Act and state counterparts when taking employment actions in response to the potential federal funding freeze. Although certain WARN Act exceptions may be available, employers must act quickly regarding notifications in order to rely on those exceptions.Employers should consult with attorneys experienced in the WARN Act when considering any employment actions in response to the federal funding freeze.Links
Detail Matters: Recent Court Decision Finds Insufficient Information Limits Employer Reliance on WARN Exceptions
TakeawaysIn Moore v. Yellow Corp. (In re Yellow Corp.), the court found that even if circumstances fit within a WARN exception, employers may lose their ability to rely on an exception if they do not send WARN notices that include all required information with a sufficient level of detail. Courts may hesitate to dismiss WARN claims based on employees’ execution of WARN waivers.Employers should not prepare WARN notices without consulting with counsel with WARN Act expertise.Related links
WARN Act Issues to Navigate for the Restaurant Industry
Restaurants’ plans for temporary or permanent closures or layoffs could trigger the notice requirements of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) or the many state mini-WARN Acts enacted across the country. Therefore, restaurants should be mindful of the various ways that the WARN Act can be triggered and plan accordingly.
Compliance with WARN for Remote Workers
WARN Act Issues in Business Transactions and Restructurings
By: WARN Act Issues in Business Transactions and Restructurings
This post commences CDF’s new monthly series from the Business Transactions and Restructurings Group, highlighting labor and employment issues that can arise in business deals.
These are strange economic times. Although some businesses do continue to grow by acquisition, we
WARN Act Considerations in an Uncertain Economy
The Year Ahead in RIF/WARN Issues in the Current Economy
In what is likely the busiest time for workforce reductions since the pandemic began, employers should engage in longer-term, strategic thinking about how to adjust staffing levels. Jackson Lewis principals Michael Jakowsky and Isaac J. Burker offer best practices for WARN and disparate impact analyses.
COVID-19–Driven Layoffs Are Not a ‘Natural Disaster’ Under WARN Act, Fifth Circuit Rules
In the first ruling from a federal appellate court examining COVID-19–related layoffs and the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held in Easom v. US Well Services, Inc., No. 21-20202 (June 15, 2022), that a mass layoff resulting in part from the economic
COVID-19 Pandemic is Not a ‘Natural Disaster’ Under WARN Act, Federal Appeals Court Holds
Is the COVID-19 pandemic a “natural disaster” for purposes of the notice exception of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act?
The Hazards of Remote Employee Layoffs: Wage and Hour Issues, Severance Agreements, and Unemployment Claims
Remote work has exploded since the COVID-19 pandemic began, with some employers hiring employees to work remotely anywhere in the United States. With the recent economic downturn, layoffs are beginning to occur, and for the first time a significant number of remote employees may be included in layoffs. Layoffs of
Fifth Circuit Rules that COVID-19 Pandemic Did Not Trigger the “Natural Disaster” Exception to WARN Notice Requirements
In the first such decision from a federal appellate court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled the COVID-19 pandemic is not a “natural disaster” that exempts employers from providing advance notice of mass layoffs and plant closures under the WARN Act. The court also
Can Discharging Remote Workers Trigger the WARN Act at a ‘Single Site of Employment’?
To say that COVID-19 has presented numerous challenges to employers would certainly be an understatement. One of the changes and challenges that has entered the workforce is the proliferation of work-from-home arrangements. With remote workers, employers have had to alter the ways they recruit, pay, manage, and even discharge employees.
Fourth Circuit Provides Guidance on How to Count Affected Employees Under WARN Act
A federal contractor that could not secure extended financing and suddenly laid off its workers when it could not make payroll was not a covered “employer” under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has held. Schmidt v. FCI Enters. LLC, Nos. 19-02384, 20-01076 (June 24, 2021).
Emily Borna Discusses WARN Act Claims Related to COVID-19
Emily Borna discusses the prospective litigation implications of class action claims brought under the WARN Act regarding notice requirements for layoffs related to the COVID-19 pandemic in “Covid as Natural Disaster? Courts to Decide WARN Act Defense,” published by Bloomberg Law.