Workplace Terminations About to Spike—Tips Employers Should Consider Before Dismissing Workers
Historical statistics show that more layoffs and discharges occur in December and January than any other time of the year.
December 05, 2023 at 09:00 AM
5 minute read
Board of ContributorsHistorical statistics show that more layoffs and discharges occur in December and January than any other time of the year. Here are the top dos and don'ts that employers should take into consideration before terminating employees:
|- Determine whether the affected employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement and, if so, whether the agreement limits the manner in which the employer may conduct layoffs or otherwise discharge employees.
- Do decide if the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act's 60-Day Notice is Required.
Whether a 60-Day Notice is required under the WARN Act will depend on the size of the employer's workforce and the number of employees to be laid off. The Act applies to employers that have 100 or more employees excluding part-time employees or 100 or more employees who work in aggregate at least 4,000 hours per week (excluding overtime hours). If the WARN Act applies, the employer must give 60 days' advance written notice of the pending layoff to: (1) either the union if it represents the employees or the employees themselves if there is no union representation; (2) the state's dislocated worker unit and (3) the governmental unit to which employers paid the most taxes the year before the layoff or reduction if:
|- The layoff at a single site of employment results in the employment loss of at least 1/3 of the employees and at least 50 or more employees (excluding part-time) for 30 days or more; or
- The layoff at the single site of employment results in the loss of employment for 500 or more employees (excluding part-time employees) for at least 30 days.
To determine whether either of these thresholds apply, employers must include in their calculation any layoffs in the last 90 days and any layoffs anticipated in the next 90 days. Determining whether the 60-Day Notice is required is crucial because violations can subject the employer to a penalty up to $500.00 per day and back pay and benefits for each employee. It is important to keep in mind that this is only a general summary of the applicability of the WARN Act to layoff and not plant closures. There are numerous other provisions that may impact the applicability of the WARN Act. Therefore, consulting a labor lawyer is strongly recommended.
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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1'Radical Left Judges'?: Trump Demands GOP Unity Against Biden's Judicial Picks
- 2NY District Attorneys Are Still No Fans of Revamped Misconduct Watchdog
- 3ICC Issues Arrest Warrants for Israel's Prime Minister Over Alleged War Crimes in Gaza
- 4Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 5Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
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