California Suspends Mini-WARN Obligations, But Still Mandates Notice
Time 2 Minute Read
California Suspends Mini-WARN Obligations, But Still Mandates Notice

No doubt recognizing the unprecedented impact on business, Governor Gavin Newsom issued an Executive Order suspending the notice requirements under the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act), Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1401(a), 1402, 1403. The Executive Order suspends existing law that could have otherwise required employers to provide 60 days’ notice before instituting mass layoffs, relocations, or terminations, and could potentially have imposed steep penalties on employers who failed to do so.  Certain notice obligations remain, however, under the Executive Order.

This comes as good news to many employers who, in reacting swiftly to the evolving public health conditions, have had to close their businesses without the ability to provide 60 days’ advance notice. Before the Executive Order suspended the 60-day notice requirement, employers that instituted immediate, emergency shutdowns faced potential liability under the California WARN Act, including civil penalties of $500 per day for up to 60 days and liability for up to 60 days’ of back pay for affected employees, among other potential damages.

Under Executive Order N-31-20, notice must still be provided. Executive Order N-31-20 requires the following:

  • The suspension of the regular 60-day notice requirement pertains to a mass layoff, relocation, or termination that is caused by COVID-19-related “business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required.”
  • Employers must provide notice to affected employees, the Employment Development Department (EDD), the local workforce investment board, and the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs.
  • Consistent with the federal WARN Act, employers must “give as much notice as is practicable,” and provide “a brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period.”
  • For notice given after March 17, 2020, the notice must contain the following statement: “If you have lost your job or been laid of temporarily, you may be eligible for Unemployment Insurance (UI). More information on UI and other resources available for workers is available at labor.ca.gov/coronavirus2019.”

The Executive Order directs the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to provide further guidance by March 23, 2020 regarding how this will be implemented.

  • Associate

    Drei understands that the business interests and long-term objectives of each client should drive litigation, and she approaches her role as an advocate with their goals in mind. Her practice focuses on complex employment, wage and ...

  • Partner

    Emily co-chairs the firm’s labor and employment group and has a national practice focusing on complex employment and wage and hour litigation and advice. Emily is an accomplished trial lawyer who defends employers in complex ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 5 Minute Read

The Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Messer et al. v. Bristol Compressors International, LLC et. al. that should serve as a cautionary tale to employers planning to use severance agreements when implementing layoffs.  There, the court considered three questions.  First, whether Bristol Compressors validly eliminated its severance plan before terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.  Second, whether certain Plaintiffs who signed a Stay Bonus Letter Agreement (“SBLA”) waived their claims against Bristol Compressors.  And third, whether four of the Plaintiffs received adequate notice under the WARN Act before their employment was terminated.

Time 3 Minute Read

On October 12, 2022, the UK Information Commissioner's Office (“ICO”) launched a public consultation on its draft guidance on employers’ obligations when monitoring at work (“Draft Guidance”). In addition, the ICO has published an impact scoping document, which outlines some of the context and potential impacts of the Draft Guidance (“Impact Scoping Document”).

Time 3 Minute Read

Over the last two years, courtesy of a once-a-century pandemic, government-mandated business closures, nationwide stay-at-home orders, and—unprecedented—disruptions to the global supply chain have illuminated, previously unknown, vulnerabilities across a whole host of industries. Would anyone have seriously questioned the viability of office space two years ago? Now, inflation, in keeping with the recent chaos, may be upending the viability of another tried-and-tested institution: the supply contract.

Time 2 Minute Read

The FTC, through the Department of Justice, has entered a settlement with two companies and the joint corporate President for falsely claiming that the LED lighting products and personal protective equipment (PPE) they sold were “Assembled in the USA,” “Buy American Act Compliant,” “Manufactured in the USA” and “100% Made in the USA,” despite having been imported from China. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants, Axis LED Group, LLC, ALG-Health LLC and Adam J. Harmon, went so far as to peel “Made in China” stickers off the products and replace them with Made in USA labels. The FTC had previously investigated and warned the companies, and received assurances that they would remove unqualified Made in USA claims from their marketing materials. The defendants subsequently were investigated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) over safety superiority claims for their KN95 masks.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page