Earlier than COVID-19 and the latest layoffs at Twitter Inc., the Employee Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, Act maintained a low profile; the act didn’t garner important media consideration, and instances alleging violations of the act have been restricted and largely routine.
A proof for this, at the least partially, is that the WARN Act is easy. It requires massive employers to supply a minimal of 60 days’ written discover to staff of mass layoffs or plant closures at a single web site of employment; in most situations, the act’s utility is evident, and employers should present the discover and/or present pay and advantages for the total discover interval.
Whereas there have been restricted disputes over technical guidelines — equivalent to what qualifies as a single web site of employment, which staff must be counted in assembly the worker thresholds within the act, or whether or not pay in lieu of discover is allowed below the act — the substantive litigations arising below the WARN Act have concerned employers in search of to excuse their noncompliance with the 60-day discover requirement.
There are solely three exceptions to that 60-day discover. The interval could be decreased for unforeseeable enterprise circumstances or pursuant to the faltering firm exception — which applies solely to facility closures when an organization is in search of new capital and offering discover may destroy the chance to acquire this capital.
Below the third exception, no discover is required if the closing is “as a result of any type of pure catastrophe.”1
COVID-19 and the ensuing office closures triggered an unprecedented uptick in WARN Act instances the place employers sought to depend on the unforeseeable enterprise circumstances or pure catastrophe exceptions. In 2020, shortly after the primary two of those lawsuits had been filed, we predicted how these instances would doubtless unfold.
Many of those early WARN Act instances concluded this yr, and this text seems to be again on the knowledge — or lack thereof — of these early predictions, what the outcomes imply for future well being emergencies and the way, if in any respect, these developments might have an effect on the extremely publicized WARN Act litigation introduced towards Twitter.
The Early Predictions
In early 2020, the primary two COVID-19 WARN Act instances have been filed.
The primary was Scott v. Hooters III Inc., within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Center District of Florida, towards Hooters’ eating places in Florida. On March 20, 2020, the governor banned all dine-in meals and beverage consumption in Florida, and on March 25, Hooters allegedly terminated all of its Florida restaurant staff with out offering any discover.
The plaintiffs alleged that Hooters had different choices in need of terminating all staff, equivalent to in search of a forgivable mortgage pursuant to the federal Paycheck Safety Program.
The second case was towards Velodyne Lidar Inc. — an autonomous-vehicle tech firm. In Siers v. Velodyne, within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs alleged that the corporate had began sending jobs abroad earlier than COVID-19 and that it used COVID-19 as a pretext to speed up that course of.
At the moment, we predicted:
• If Hooters may present that almost all of its income was from dine-in service, the federal government’s efficient closure of dine-in service would justify a shortened discover interval;
• A court docket was unlikely to rule that Hooters ought to have been required to hunt a PPP Mortgage earlier than selecting to close down;
• Velodyne Lidar wouldn’t be capable to keep away from legal responsibility if it may very well be proven the corporate had already made the choice to take these jobs abroad;
• The pure catastrophe exception wouldn’t apply except the courts interpreted the exception past its earlier functions; and
• There was no foundation for using the faltering firm exception to the WARN Act.
The Quick-Lived Hooters and Velodyne Lidar Instances
Each instances have been short-lived. The Hooters case was voluntarily dismissed on July 16, 20202 and Velodyne Lidar was voluntarily dismissed on June 29, 2020.3
The stipulated dismissal within the Hooters case instructed that staff might need been re-offered employment inside six months of the separation. To qualify as an employment loss below the WARN Act, the layoff should exceed six months.
There is no such thing as a publicly obtainable data obtainable on the potential phrases of the decision of the Velodyne Lidar matter.
Whereas these instances present no foundation to verify or refute our early predictions, numerous different instances that examined comparable theories present extra data.
The Outcomes
The Pure Catastrophe Exception
The primary three courts to handle whether or not the pure catastrophe exception applies to COVID-19 disagreed with the authors:
1. In 2021, in Benson et al. v. Enterprise Leasing Firm of Florida LLC, the U.S. District Courtroom for the Center District of Florida assumed with out deciding that “COVID-19 could also be a pure catastrophe inside the which means of the WARN Act”;4
2. In March 2022, in In re: Artwork Van Furnishings LLC, the U.S. Chapter Courtroom for the District of Delaware held that “the COVID-19 pandemic qualifies as a pure catastrophe and could also be invoked below the pure catastrophe exception to the WARN Act”;5 and
3. In March 2021, in Easom v. US Nicely Providers Inc., the U.S. District Courtroom for the Southern District of Texas relied on numerous instances outdoors the WARN Act context to conclude that “the dictionary definition of pure catastrophe, different court docket selections, and the statutory language help the conclusion that the COVID-19 pandemic is a pure catastrophe below the WARN Act.”6
In June, nevertheless, the Fifth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals overturned the Easom case in a unanimous resolution. The court docket dominated — as initially predicted — that the time period “pure catastrophe” solely included occasions of the identical sort because the examples recognized within the WARN Act itself, that’s, floods, earthquakes, droughts, or different bodily occasions.7
The U.S. Supreme Courtroom rejected the employer’s request to enchantment the Fifth Circuit’s resolution.
It appeared that the U.S. Courtroom of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit can be the second court docket of appeals to handle the difficulty as a result of an enchantment of Benson, the primary case listed above. However, on Oct. 28, the events reached a settlement and voluntarily dismissed the enchantment pursuant to a stipulation.
As well as, in August one other Florida employer selected to settle a WARN Act class motion go well with within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Center District of Florida, Turner v. Rosen Inns & Resorts Inc., for $2.3 million as an alternative of risking continued reliance on the pure catastrophe exception.8
Briefly, within the unlucky occasion that one other pandemic happens, no employer ought to really feel comfy relying solely on the pure catastrophe exception.
The Faltering Firm and Unforeseeable Enterprise Circumstances Exceptions
No employer accused of violating the WARN Act relied on the faltering firm exception in any of the 18 reported selections involving COVID-19. As well as, not one of the instances addressed whether or not an employer may have been obligated to aim to acquire a PPP Mortgage earlier than effecting a closure or mass layoff.
As for the unforeseeable enterprise circumstances exception, no reported case was extra direct than the Hooters case in linking a government-ordered closure to worker terminations, however in Artwork Van Furnishings, the Delaware chapter court docket acknowledged that authorities stay-at-home orders had an unforeseeable impact on an employer’s retail places.
Additional, the court docket discovered the employer — and its trustee in chapter, who was liable for winding down an employer’s retail operations — offered discover as quickly because it turned fairly foreseeable that the layoffs can be mandatory.9
As anticipated, the court docket repeatedly acknowledged the fact-specific nature of this exception, and it discovered no motive to consider that the employer or trustee had used COVID-19 as a pretext for its layoff selections on this occasion.
Sooner or later, this exception will proceed to rely on the precise factual scenario and the way comparable companies out there have reacted to comparable conditions, however it’s more likely to stay probably the most viable protection offered that an employer can set up it offered discover as quickly as layoffs turned fairly foreseeable.
Twitter WARN Act Litigation
Within the final month, the WARN Act was again within the information due to a category motion lawsuit. On Nov. 3, 5 Twitter staff filed a category motion criticism within the U.S. District Courtroom for the Northern District of California10 alleging seven causes of motion; two of the claims allege federal and state WARN Act violations for failing to supply 60-days’ discover.
Whereas Elon Musk tweeted that there was no alternative however to put off staff as a result of “the corporate is dropping over $4m/day,” the restricted publicly obtainable data doesn’t point out whether or not Twitter intends to depend on the unforeseeable enterprise circumstances or every other WARN Act exception.
As a substitute, based mostly on the three WARN Act notices that Twitter filed in San Francisco, Santa Monica, and San Jose, it seems Twitter offered layoff notices to staff on Nov. 4, and it intends to maintain these staff on its payroll by means of Jan. 4, 2023,11 thus assembly its 60-day discover obligation below the WARN Act.
Twitter can be conducting layoffs in New York, the place New York’s mini-WARN Act statute requires 90 days’ discover; Twitter’s New York WARN Act notices have been despatched on Nov. 4, and state the layoffs will turn into efficient on Feb. 2, 2023,12 thus fulfilling New York’s 90-day discover requirement.
Accordingly, whereas this case is notable due to the extraordinary media scrutiny concerned, it seems to be one of many simple and routine WARN Act claims which have been the historic norm below the act.
Finest Practices
Our key takeaway from these early WARN Act instances and the Twitter case stays the identical: Err on the facet of warning with WARN Act notices.
As well as:
• The unforeseeable enterprise circumstances exception nonetheless requires as a lot discover as doable; the notification requirement is just not absolutely excused, and the discover ought to include enough data to elucidate the rationale for the shortened discover interval;
• The Supreme Courtroom might ultimately determine whether or not the pure catastrophe exception applies to well being emergencies; we advise towards being the take a look at case;
• Take note of mini-WARN Act legal guidelines or different notification necessities on the state stage; and
• When negotiating a merger or acquisition, pay attention to potential WARN Act liabilities and mitigate appropriately.
Hopefully, the traditionally bland WARN Act will return to type, and employers won’t be compelled to endure something just like the COVID-19 pandemic once more.
That is an article which Barbara Roth, Accomplice and Tyler Hendry, Senior Affiliate co-wrote for Law360.
[1] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(B).
[2] Scott et al. v. Hooters III Inc., No. 8:20-cv-00882-SDM-AAS, Docket Nos. 15-16 (M.D. Fla. 2020).
[3] Siers v. Velodyne Lidar Inc., 5:20-cv-02290-NC, Docket No. 10 (N.D. Cal. 2020).
[4] See Benson et al. v. Enter. Leasing Co. Fla. LLC, No. 6:20-CV-00891, slip op. at 10, 2021 WL 1078185 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 4, 2021).
[5] In re Artwork Van Furnishings LLC, 638 B.R. 523, 542 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022).
[6] Easom v. US Nicely Servs. Inc., 527 F. Supp. 3d 898, 911 (S.D. Tex. 2021), rev’d and remanded, 37 F.4th 238 (fifth Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. U.S. Nicely Servs. v. Easom, No. 22-333, 2022 WL 16909200 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2022).
[7] Easom v. US Nicely Servs. Inc., 37 F.4th 238, 243-44 (fifth Cir. 2022), cert. denied sub nom. U.S. Nicely Servs. v. Easom, No. 22-333, 2022 WL 16909200 (U.S. Nov. 14, 2022).
[8] Turner v. Rosen Inns & Resorts Inc., 6:21-cv-00161-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla., settlement authorized Aug. 2, 2022).
[9] In re Artwork Van Furnishings LLC at 542-43.
[10] Cornet et al. v. Twitter Inc., 3:22-cv-06857-JD (N.D. Cal. 2022).
[11] https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN
[12] https://dol.ny.gov/system/information/paperwork/2022/11/warn-twitter-nyc-2022-0050-11-8-2022_0.pdf
