Special thanks to co-presenter, Jennifer Bernardo.
With a surge in layoffs taking place over the past year, many of those originally hired to diversify the workplace have been impacted, and studies show that inclusion, diversity and equity (ID&E) professionals have been affected by layoffs at a higher rate than others. The harm? Other than
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
With concerns intensifying about an economic downturn, unfortunately some layoffs or other reductions-in-force may be necessary for employers to weather the storm.
What’s different now as opposed to early-on in the pandemic? Because of the ups and downs in the market, and phenomena like the “great resignation” and remote work on a scale never seen before
Special thanks to presenters: Jennifer Bernardo, Jeremy Hann, Andrew Shaw, Ajanthana Anandarajah, Dave Bushuev, Matthew De Lio, Rono Khan, Junaid Malik & Juliette Mestre.
The new year brings new challenges for employers. Join us as we take stock of changes over the last year and strategize for
In our latest Global Immigration and Mobility video chat, Melissa Allchin provides a year-end review of essential immigration and mobility updates for employers. Melissa highlights equal pay transparency laws and the impact on an employer’s obligations under existing immigration law, COVID-related travel considerations, immigration compliance considerations employers should keep top-of-mind with respect to remote or
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.
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.
Under the federal WARN Act, covered employers are employers with:
WARN-ing: State mini-WARN acts often have lower thresholds for covered employers.
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:
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.
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
