Cost-cutting / Reductions in Force

Subscribe to Cost-cutting / Reductions in Force via RSS

In 2025, multinational giants across industries are redefining the scale and scope of global workforce reductions—with some cutting tens of thousands of jobs at a time in particular divisions, shuttering certain factories worldwide, moving to different countries, or otherwise undertaking large-scale restructuring—and this trend is likely to press on. Indeed, the World Economic Forum’s Chief People Officers Outlook – September 2025 shows 42% expect continued turbulence in the year ahead. These sweeping moves, driven by AI disruption, economic recalibration, and strategic realignment, underscore the urgent need for legally sound, jurisdiction-sensitive approaches to reductions in force.  

Headcount reductions can be achieved using a variety of different mechanisms ranging from performance-based terminations, redundancy-based layoffs, location-based closures or other indirect strategies like attrition management, voluntary separation programs, and early retirement incentives. No matter the approach or structure for implementing a global reduction in headcount, executing a major business change while mitigating legal exposure requires a nuanced understanding of local employment laws, cultural expectations, justification requirements, local regulations impacting the treatment of equity awards, as well as potential immigration and visa implications. Missteps during the planning or execution stage can trigger material employment claims, unexpected and substantial financial and operational costs, regulatory fines, operational disruption and reputational damage.

Fortunately, there are tried and true methods to avoid most unintended effects and unwanted outcomes. Here we provide 10 practical planning tips for building your strategy when the company seeks to reduce its headcount through a global reduction in force (RIF).

The Economic Backdrop: A Mixed Outlook

Even with the uptick in layoffs, the global economy in 2025 is showing signs of resilience, with the International Monetary Fund projecting 3.0% growth this year and 3.1% in 2026. However, this modest optimism is tempered by persistent inflation, geopolitical tensions, and a surge in protectionist trade policies. According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, slower growth is expected to displace 1.6 million jobs globally by 2030, with automation and digital transformation accelerating the shift.

In this climate, in-house legal counsel must be proactive in managing employment risks associated with cost-cutting, restructuring, and reductions in force.

Strategic Planning Tips for Your Global RIF Playbook

1. Level-set with key business stakeholders—communicate the jurisdictional complexity of a RIF involving multiple jurisdictions.

Employment protections vary widely around the world. While at-will employment in the United States allows for relatively straightforward terminations (barring union involvement or statutory notice requirements), most jurisdictions around the world (including the majority of Europe, as well as Canada, Australia and Japan) provide mandatory protections against dismissal, which often include articulating a legally justified reason for the RIF as well as taking additional procedural steps before employees are impacted. When constructing plans for a global RIF, it’s helpful to be clear with business leaders who are not employment counsel that it’s essential to build alternate timelines and costs based on jurisdiction-specific requirements.

Along these lines, engaging with local counsel early to navigate procedural nuances is key. This helps mitigate the risk of unforeseen complications, such as delays due to mandatory consultation periods, unexpected severance obligations, or exposure to legal claims arising from non-compliance with jurisdiction-specific requirements. Timescales and costs for RIFs are likely to increase as a result of legislative changes in 2026, underscoring the importance of checking local requirements early on.

2. Pressure-test the business justification for the RIF.

The starting point for analyzing reductions-in-force is understanding the legal threshold for a justified reduction (e.g., in Japan, there must be a strong economic justification for redundancies). Only very few international jurisdictions (e.g., Singapore and Switzerland) do not require employers to show specific grounds or justification for termination.Continue Reading Cutting Costs Without Cutting Corners: 10 Practical Tips for Managing Legal Risk in Global Reductions in Force

With special thanks to our presenters Matías Herrero (Argentina), Leticia Ribeiro (Trench Rossi Watanabe, Sao Paulo*), Andrew Shaw (Canada), Maria Cecilia Reyes (Colombia) and Liliana Hernandez-Salgado (Mexico).

In this session, US-based multinational employers with business operations in the Americas region hear directly from Benjamin Ho and local practitioners on the major developments they need to…

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 Asia Pacific, Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the Americas regions will hear directly from local practitioners on the…

As layoffs hit the headlines in the post-pandemic world it raises the question as to what is next when it comes to managing work forces. In this episode of TMT Talk, Susan Eandi, Kim Sartin and Jonathan Isaacs discuss key factors of workforce reduction, developing restructuring plans, cost-cutting measures to consider and opportunistic hiring…

Effective April 10, covered New Jersey employers must comply with new requirements under the New Jersey mini-WARN Act. New Jersey will join New York and Maine as one of three jurisdictions where employers are required to provide 90 days’ advanced notice to affected employees. (See our prior blog here).

Key changes to NJ-WARN include the following:

  • The employers covered by NJ-WARN has been expanded by the amendments, to include any employer who employs 100 or more employees, whether full-time or not (previously it required employment of 100 or more full-time employees).
  • The threshold for a “mass layoff” triggering NJ-WARN has been reduced significantly. Under the amended law, a “mass layoff” means the termination of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment in a 30-day period. Previously, a mass layoff meant (i) the termination of 50 or more employees comprising 1/3 of the workforce at the establishment, or (ii) the termination of 500 or more employees.
  • The scope of employees that count toward the 50-employee threshold for a “mass layoff” has been expanded:
    • Both employees “at” the establishment and “reporting to” the establishment are counted, which may include remote employees in New Jersey as well as other states. Prior to the amendments, the threshold for a mass layoff included 50 or more employees “at” the establishment.
    • Both part-time and full-time employees must be counted toward the threshold. Previously, only full-time employees counted toward the threshold.
  • The definition of a covered “establishment” has been expanded to include a non-contiguous group of locations / facilities of an employer within the State (previously it applied to contiguous worksites / office parks of an employer). Based on the amendment’s legislative history, this appears to be aimed at retail companies with multiple locations in the State. However, it is unclear how this could apply to largely or entirely remote workforces, and how it “squares” with the inclusion of remote, out of state, employees in the 50 employee threshold.
  • Covered employers will be required to provide at least 90 days’ notice (as opposed to the prior 60 days’ notice) before the first termination of employment occurs in connection with a termination or transfer of operations, or mass layoff. If the employer fails to provide 90 days’ notice, the employer is required to provide the terminated employee with four weeks of pay (which is a new requirement) in addition to statutory severance (see next bullet point).
  • In addition to notice, covered employers will be required to provide severance pay equal to one week of pay for each full year of employment to each terminated employee. (Previously, the law required one week of severance pay for each year worked only if the employer failed to provide the required 60 days’ notice.)

Overall review of NJ-WARN amendments

Here’s a quick review of what will be required once the amendments take effect.

Triggering events

NJ-WARN applies to employers with 100 or more employees anywhere in the US, when:

  • A covered establishment transfers or terminates operations which results, during any continuous period of not more than 30 days, in the termination of 50 or more employees; or
  • An employer conducts a mass layoff (i.e., termination of 50 or more employees in a 30-day period) at a covered establishment.

Terminations for cause or poor performance excluded

Although NJ-WARN’s “termination of employment” definition excludes (1) voluntary departures, (2) retirement, and (3) terminations for misconduct, the statute does not clearly specify whether ordinary terminations for cause or poor performance can trigger its requirements. But our research into NJ-WARN’s legislative history strongly suggests that terminations for cause or poor performance are not covered by NJ-WARN. In the February 27, 2006 New Jersey Assembly Labor Committee hearing, NJ-WARN’s lead senate sponsor clarified that the legislation was not intended to apply to employees terminated for poor performance.

Note on aggregation

Under the new amendments, an employer whose layoff decision affects employees at multiple New Jersey worksites may be subject to NJ-WARN’s notice and severance requirements even if less than 50 employees are terminated at each individual worksite.

To determine whether a termination or transfer of operations or mass layoff is subject to NJ-WARN’s notification requirements, employers generally must aggregate any terminations of employment for two or more groups at a single “establishment” occurring within any 90-day period. If the aggregate number of terminations of all the groups is 50 or more, then the terminations are subject to NJ-WARN’s notice and severance requirements (unless the employer can demonstrate that each group’s cause of terminations is separate and distinct from the other groups’ causes). And since the definition of an “establishment” has been expanded to include an employer’s non-contiguous group of locations / facilities within New Jersey, multi-site employers should consider the aggregate impact of any layoff decision affecting multiple worksites.

Remote workforce

NJ-WARN’s updated “mass layoff” and “establishment” definitions have also created some ambiguity regarding the statute’s application to remote employees. Specifically, a “mass layoff” now includes employees “at or reporting to” the “establishment.” And since “establishment” has been amended to include “a group of locations,” there is an argument that terminated remote employees should be counted for purposes of determining NJ-WARN applicability. But the legislative history of the NJ-WARN amendments suggests the changes were aimed at retail companies with multiple locations in New Jersey, and therefore NJ-WARN’s application to remote employees remains unclear.Continue Reading Next Month NJ Employers Must Comply With New Not-So-Mini Obligations Under Its Mini-WARN Act