News about the WARN Act keeps surfacing in everything from law firm closings to bakery layoffs

While I’ve touched on the subject before, the Connecticut Law Tribune this week published a longer piece that I’ve written on the basics of the act for employers, particularly those in Connecticut.  You can download the article here.  

In my view, this Act is one of the easiest for companies to comply with, and yet, time and again, we see examples of employers who do not follow its mandates.

Perhaps the most important takeaway from the piece is the fact that WARN is not a mandatory severance law but rather a mandatory notice law.  Once the notice is providing within the required timeframe to both employees and various public officials, then the company is — for the most part — off the hook here. 

 

  • aww

    The real problem is not in the notice but in the time. Startup firms might not realize they have a very short term need to conserve cash for a host of reasons, and so need to lay off most or all of the workforce and NOT carry that payroll for 60 additional days. Unfortunately doing so means that the company is in violation of the law. So while WARN is supposed to be a “notification”, it’s not always apparent with 60 days notice that you have the need to notify. Thus the WARN becomes an obligation to pay for 60 days, not merely notify.