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
© 2024 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 AllEmployers Race to File NLRB Petitions to Gain Upper Hand in Union Organizing
5 minute readTractor Supply Co.'s Stock Takes Hit After Activists Bash Its Embrace of DEI
6 minute readSouthwest Vows to Appeal Order Requiring Top Lawyers to Undergo 'Religious Liberty Training'
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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