General Counsel Need to Consider WARN Act for COVID-19 Layoffs
"I think right now, state governors are really focused on public health," Cheryl Sabnis, a partner at King & Spalding in San Francisco, said. "I think we're going to see a follow-up round of executive actions that focus on economic health."
March 23, 2020 at 06:59 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Whether or not the new coronavirus will exempt employers from giving a minimum layoff notice to workers under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act is something general counsel should begin to think about as their companies contemplate mass layoffs in the coming months.
Under the federal WARN Act, companies must give 60 days of notice when 50 or more employees will be impacted by a layoff. An unforeseeable circumstance is one of the exemptions to the federal law, which could include COVID-19 and would allow employers to give less of a notice.
"Although we do not have Department of Labor guidance yet, many of us think these are unforeseeable circumstances," said Linda Jackson, a partner at Arent Fox in Washington, D.C., referring to the pandemic.
Jackson said in-house counsel should still make sure that companies are giving as much notice as they possibly can, even if COVID-19 is considered unforeseeable under federal law.
Cheryl Sabnis, a partner at King & Spalding in San Francisco, said the circumstances surrounding COVID-19 support an exemption to the federal WARN Act.
"We've seen stay at home orders, businesses have to shutter if they're not essential, and we've seen a massive economic downturn," Sabnis said.
She explained those orders make it difficult to give the minimum 60-day notice if they must be shut down right away.
General counsel should also keep in mind that there are different state versions of the WARN Act, which require different notices and do not have the same exemptions built into them. California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee and Wisconsin have their own versions of the WARN Act.
"For any company that is considering embarking on a mass layoff, they have to look at where the federal act applies and see if the state they are in has its own WARN Act," Jackson said. "This is something where they need to look at the layer of laws."
Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed an executive order, which allows companies to give only "as much notice as is practicable" before a layoff, rather than the 60 days which was required under California law.
Sabnis said she would anticipate that other states, at a minimum, look at their mini-WARN requirements and create exemptions or loosen up the law.
"I think right now, state governors are really focused on public health," Sabnis said. "I think we're going to see a follow-up round of executive actions that focus on economic health."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readEmployers Race to File NLRB Petitions to Gain Upper Hand in Union Organizing
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1More Litigation Coming? Insulin MDL Gets Boost from FTC Report
- 2Judge Spends 3 Hours Explaining His Decision
- 3Morgan Lewis Closes Shenzhen Office Less Than 2 Years After Launch
- 4On The Move: Freeman Mathis & Gary Adds Florida Partners, Employment Pro Joins Jackson Lewis
- 5New Trouble for Allstate: National Class Action Targets Insurer
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250