Some Questions about the WARN Act

I have several questions about the WARN act -- the wording states:

A “mass layoff” is defined as a reduction in force that: (1) is not the result of a plant closing; and (2) results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for either:

At least 33% of the employees (excluding any part-time employees) and at least 50 employees (excluding any part-time employees); or

At least 500 employees (excluding any part-time employees).

example: a site has 150 employees. 33% of 150 =49

question: can they lay off 49 employees without notice because it does not meet the 50 employee requirement?

Example: a site has 300 employees. 33% of 300 = 99

Question: can they lay off 98 people without notice?

Example: a site has 600 employees but 400 are part time.

Question: Can they lay off all 600 people without warning because they have only 200 full time workers?

Found this as a reply to another thread by @VTpwnt1-Lnqd , but these questions are something that I was wondering about as well.

Comment! It's anonymous!

5 replies (most recent on top)

https://www1.ctdol.state.ct.us/lmi/buschanges_files/BusinessEmploymentChanges.pdf

Connecticut and WARN Act

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-warn-act-warning-94928/

Here is more information explaining why the WARN act is not a threat to large companies:

An employer who violates the WARN provisions is liable to each employee for an amount equal to back pay and benefits for the period of the violation, up to 60 days. The liability may be reduced by the period of any notice that was given and any voluntary payments that the employer made to the employee, sometimes referred to as "pay in lieu of notice."

So, here is an example: The average worker who has been at Optum for 10 years should have a severance package of 10 weeks. If one of these employees were to file a complaint using the WARN act as a defense, the company would have to pay back pay for 60 days MINUS the 10 week severance - which is obviously a negative number.

I agree that a 60 day warning should be given to all employees regardless of the size of their company. But the WARN act has too many loopholes to make it effective.

Batman:

I don't think that the law is poorly enforced, I do think that there are many loopholes in the law . As the math in the example shows, a large company like Optum/United Healthcare can easily lay off thousands of people without breaking this law.

The problem is that these laws are poorly enforced and UNH knows it. UNH demands 10% productivity improvement in order to activate the bonus pool. So those who raise real issues have their positions eliminated in November and the bonus is distributed in February. The severance is a very abusive Do not Sue contract. The only way to deal with these evil doers is by way of the courts. Good news: A California Judge affirmed the $93 million Pacificare fine for the Pacificare atrocities. The $1Billion Medicare Advantage lawsuit is moving forward. The stock price is way down. Poor Fat Dumb Robin - At Least she still has her culture training. Way to go Robin!

Thread regarding UnitedHealth Group Inc. layoffs

Some Questions about the WARN Act

5 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply