8

The U.S. federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN) states that employers with 100 or more employees must provide at least 60 days advance notice before a mass layoff affecting 50 or more employees.

Are there any protections against an employer circumventing the WARN act by staggering layoffs over multiple days? For example, could an employer lay off 200 people without notice by laying off 40 employees each day for a week?

Improve this question
2
  • 2
    Note that some states have their own requirements that may be stricter, so WARN may not be the only thing you have to keep in mind.
    – bta
    Commented Nov 5, 2022 at 2:13
  • And union contracts could also be involved.
    – Barmar
    Commented Nov 7 at 21:58

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
14

Are there any protections against an employer circumventing the WARN act by staggering layoffs over multiple days? For example, could an employer lay off 200 people without notice by laying off 40 employees each day for a week?

The WARN Act's definition of layoffs measures the number of employees laid off in "any 30-day period". 29 U.S.C. § 2101.

So, to lay off 200 people without notice, it would have to stagger it at 40 people a month over five months, not over five days.

Improve this answer
6
  • 1
    So the limit would be laying off 49 employees per month then?
    – Stevoisiak
    Commented Nov 4, 2022 at 17:55
  • 3
    @Stevoisiak Yes. An employer can lay off 49 employees in a 30 day period (the spacing has to be just right so there is no 30 day period starting at any point where it is exceeded and not just a calendar month) without triggering the WARN Act.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Nov 4, 2022 at 17:57
  • 2
    @gnasher729 idk how it works once the statute has been invoked by giving notice. I would think that you couldn't do that, but it would be a much trickier legal issue to research.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Nov 4, 2022 at 18:40
  • 4
    Probably worth noting that while this may be legal, no sane employer would ever do this: you would never be able to credibly tell the survivors that it's over and it's hard enough to retain people after a layoff as it is. It also would signal a certain cluelessness about what it will actually take to turn the business around to the Street.
    – Jared Smith
    Commented Nov 5, 2022 at 18:30
  • 2
    @JaredSmith I think the point of avoiding the notice requirement is that you don't actually have to let anyone (including the Street) know you're doing layoffs. You can make them look like routine firings.
    – Barmar
    Commented Nov 7 at 21:58

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .