Photo of Susan F. Eandi

Studies show that as many as 98% of CEOs are anticipating a global recession in the next 12-18 months, which means that companies have already started focusing on cutting costs and redistributing resources to best position themselves to survive. One of the largest cost centers on any company’s balance sheet is its workforce. As such, layoffs or other reductions-in-force (RIF) have already started to hit, and will likely continue. What’s different this time around? Because of the ups and downs in the market, and phenomena like the “great resignation” and remote work on a scale never seen before, there is a greater likelihood that more employers will find themselves potentially triggering the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN Act) (and analogous state laws, known as state “mini-WARN acts”) statutes. These statutes impose notice and information obligations, which can be tricky to keep track of, and carry potentially heavy penalties for noncompliance.

What to do?  Employers who see a layoff on the horizon — and even those who may have already undertaken layoffs — should revisit the requirements of WARN (and state mini-WARNs) now, and keep the following “WARN-ings” and practice tips in mind as they work with counsel.

What is WARN and what WARN-ings should companies watch out for?

In short, WARN requires employers to give advanced notice to affected employees in the event of a covered mass layoff or plant closing. Under the federal WARN, employers must provide 60 days’ notice of termination to the impacted employees, union representatives (if applicable), and certain government authorities. Under some state mini-WARN acts, 90 days’ notice is required.

Which employers are covered?

Under the federal WARN Act, covered employers are employers with:

  • 100 or more employees, excluding part-time employees and those with less than 6 months of service in the last 12 months, or
  • 100 or more employees, including part-time employees, who collectively work more than 4,000 hours per week, excluding overtime.

WARN-ing: State mini-WARN acts often have lower thresholds for covered employers.

When is notice required?

Under WARN, covered employers need to provide notice if a triggering event–a “mass layoff” or “plant closing”–occurs.

Mass layoff: A mass layoff is a reduction in force that (i) does not result from a plant closing, and (ii) results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for:

  • at least 50-499 covered employees if they represent at least 33% of the total active workforce, or
  • 500 or more covered employees.

Plant closing: A plant closing is the permanent or temporary shutdown of a single place of employment or one or more facilities/operating units resulting in an employment loss during a 30-day period for 50 or more covered employees.

How should employers calculate the time frame to determine when WARN notice is required?

WARN always requires aggregating the employment losses that occur over a 30-day period.

WARN also requires aggregation of the employment losses that occur over a 90-day period that did not, on their own, trigger WARN notice, unless the employer can show that the layoffs were the result of separate and distinct causes and are not an attempt to evade WARN.

WARN-ing: Therefore, employers should look ahead and behind 90 days and add up layoffs that have occurred and any planned layoffs to determine whether separate layoffs may trigger notice requirements under WARN.

Continue Reading Employer WARN-ing: Layoffs Could Trigger WARN Notice Requirements this Time Around

As we wind up 2022 and head into 2023, all eyes are on salary and pay range requirements in job postings. Where these laws apply, what they require, and when they go into effect has been top-of-mind for US employers in 2022.

Here’s what employers need to know now as they navigate the patchwork of

Join us for an in-person event with special guest, EEOC Commissioner Keith Sonderling

Commissioner Sonderling is recognized for his thought leadership on inclusive AI. He is at the forefront of advocating for rational AI enforcement that meets the mandate of equality without disrupting innovation. He has noted the value of learning the perspectives of innovators

Special thanks to guest contributor, Melissa Allchin

COVID-19 has been a mainstay for over two years now. Notwithstanding the pandemic’s devastating impacts, employers (and employees) have tired of thinking about COVID-19, and are ready to allocate their energy and resources to other pressing matters, such as the economic crisis or transformative geopolitical events.

Though

Special thanks to presenter Melissa Allchin.

The possibility of putting COVID-19 in our collective rearview mirrors grows every day. But before we declare the pandemic over, our Labor & Employment and Immigration lawyers discuss the key items employers should keep in mind as we head towards the pandemic’s exit, including:

  • contact

Special thanks to panelist Nicholas Murray, of Twilio.

Join us for our webinar, “Measure What You Treasure,co-hosted by the ACC Foundation.

The first step in any organization’s strategic approach to advancing inclusion, diversity and equity is ensuring that accurate data exists. But diversity data collection can be challenging. 

Special thanks to presenters Nadege Dallais (Paris), Fermin Guardiola (Madrid), Danielle Pinedo (Amsterdam), Stephen Ratcliffe (London) and Bernhard Trappehl (Munich).

Our four-part Navigating the World webinar series features US moderators welcoming Baker McKenzie colleagues from around the globe as they share the latest labor and employment law updates and trends. In this session, US-based multinational

Join us for a four-part webinar series as our US moderators welcome colleagues from around the globe to share the latest labor and employment law updates and trends. US-based multinational employers with business operations in Europe, the Americas, the Middle East and Africa, and Asia Pacific regions will hear directly from local

On April 1, a state court judge in Los Angeles ruled that the California law (AB 979) mandating publicly traded companies include people from underrepresented communities on their boards violates the California Constitution. We initially reported on AB 979 here, noting that it was the first law of its kind in the US and was the second time California sought to mandate diversification of public company boards through legislation. In 2018, the first piece of California legislation (SB 826) aimed at increasing gender diversity; in 2020, AB 979 sought to increase diversity from underrepresented communities.

AB 979

The 2020 law requires publicly held corporations headquartered in California to include at least one person on their boards from an underrepresented community by the end of last year, with additional appointments required in future years. People from underrepresented communities are defined as anyone who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender.

Under AB 979, the California Secretary of State must report annually on companies’ compliance with the law and may impose fines of $100,000 for an initial violation and $300,000 for each subsequent violation.

Continue Reading California’s Board Diversity Law Struck Down in State Court, But Movement for Inclusion and Diversity on Boards Persists