Source: https://www.warnactnews.com/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 06:08:33+00:00

Document:
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act news, legislation, and case law.
The Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice is a national, non-profit organization, advocating for working people and their communities. We work for economic and social justice by binding corporations and government to their legal and ethical responsibilities. The Sugar Law Center has been at the forefront of WARN Act litigation since 1992. Together with our cooperating attorneys, the Sugar Law Center has represented thousands of workers in hundreds of WARN Act cases throughout the country.
The Sugar Law Center is affiliated with the National Lawyer's Guild.
CAL. LABOR Code, Ch. 4, § 1400 et. seq.
Clev. City Code, Ch. 38, § 396.03. ((*Requires businesses with buildings of 150,000 square feet or more of space to give 60 day advance notice to various city officials before vacating or abandoning the property).
820 ILL. COMP. STAT., 65/1 et. seq.
(*No advance notification law. Under certain circumstances, notification to government officials is required when a company adopts a plan for dissolution, liquidation or withdrawal from the state).
Iowa Code § 84C.1 et. seq. (At Title III, Subtitle 2, Chapter 84C).
(*No advance notification law. Companies prohibited from reducing or ceasing operations for the purpose of avoiding state labor laws - notice to secretary of labor can reduced potential liability).
Md. Code, Corp. & Assoc., § 1-101. (*Requires Maryland corporations to give 20 day advance notice to workers before filing dissolution papers). Md. Code, Lab.& Empl., § 11-301 et. seq. (*Suggests, but does not require, a 90 notice period by employers of 50 or more persons before workplace closings and relocations that affect 25 percent of the workforce of 15 or more employees, which is greater).
COMAR, § 09.33.02.04. (*Voluntary guidelines for advance notification of workers). COMAR, § 09.32.02.06. (*Requires employer to file, 48 hours in advance of the layoffs, notice with Secretary of Labor).
MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 149, §§ 179B, 182, & 183; and MASS. GEN. LAWS, ch. 151A, § 71A et. seq.
NAC, § 284.626. (*Applies only to state employees).
N.H. R.S.A. 275:1 et. seq.
N.J.S.A. § 34:21-1 et. seq.
N.Y. LAB. LAW § 860 et. seq.
N.D. Admin. Code § 27-03-02-01 et. seq. (*Requires advance notice to state officials prior to certain layoffs or separations).
Ohio Rev. Code § 4141.28. (*Not an advance notification statute. Requires notice to director at least three working days prior to certain layoffs or separations).
Or. Rev. Stat. § 285A.510 et. seq. (*Not an advance notice to workers statute. Provides regulations for giving notice under federal WARN Act).
Philadelphia City Code, Ch. 9, § 9-1500 et. seq.
29 L.P.R.A. § 185a. (*Not an advance notification statute. Provides for severance pay based on years of service).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-601 et. seq. (*Statute applies to smaller employers. Imposes administrative requirements, but not advance notice).
21 V.S.A. § 411 et. seq.
Virgin Islands Code – Labor, Title 24, Chapter 18 § 471 et. seq. (*Provides advance notification and severance pay).
The WARN Act does not specifically address the right to a jury trial, leaving it to the courts to decide whether a jury trial is constitutionally required. The Eleventh Circuit has not addressed this question. However, the weight of existing authority—including the Sixth Circuit, the only circuit court to have squarely addressed the issue—holds that there is no right to a jury trial because the WARN Act's remedies are equitable in nature.
The case is Pierluca v. Quality Res., Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60089 (M.D. FL. Apr. 20, 2017). The Court's opinion can be found here.
H.R. 5022, the “Helping Individuals with Reemployment and Entrepreneurial Development Act”, also known as the “HIRED Act”, amends the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), “to ensure dislocated workers are provided consultation and advice for starting a small business as part (of) the rapid response activities for dislocated workers”. While traditional ‘rapid response’ services are limited in the scope of training they can provide to displaced workers, this Act would allow for a state to, “allocate up to 10% of funds reserved by the state governor for statewide rapid response activities to provide outreach about small business opportunities and consultation about starting a small business”. This Act can help provide the much needed mobility for displaced employees to become small business owners. The Act was last referred to the House Subcommittee on High Education and Workforce Training.
L.B. 1134, formerly L.B. 261, the Nebraska Worker’s Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, was again indefinitely postponed at the end of the state’s legislative session on April 18, 2018. The Act would require employers of 25 or more to provide 60 days written notice to affected employees in mass-layoff situations. According to the legislation a “Mass layoff means a reduction in employment force that results in an employment loss at a single site of employment during any sixty-day period of twenty-five or more employees, other than part-time employees”. The legislation, freshly introduced by state Senator Matt Hansen during the 105th unicameral legislature’s first session, and again by state Senators Tony Vargas and Sue Crawford in the second session, has existed in some form since 2011.
H.R. 4139 (S. 234), the “End Outsourcing Act”, introduced during the 115th Session of Congress, amends the WARN Act, requiring employers in situations of international outsourcing to include an ‘Outsourcing Statement’ in the WARN Notice to employees. The ‘Outsourcing Statement’, “must specify whether part or all of the positions held by affected employees will be moved outside of the United States, regardless of whether the positions are moved within the business enterprise involved or to another business enterprise”. The Act would further hold employers publicly responsible for the international displacement of American jobs.
In Carlberg v. Guam Indus. Servs., 2017 U.S. Dist. (D. Guam, Mar. 7, 2017), Chief Judge of the District of Guam, Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood granted over 150 individuals class certification on the basis of WARN Act violations. A Guam Shipyard terminated all Plaintiffs merely four days after losing a contract to repair ships for the Military Sealift Command.
Defendants filed two motions to dismiss initially holding that “Plaintiffs (1) failed to articulate a legal duty recognized by the courts of Guam and (2) failed to allege sufficient facts that state a gross negligence claim”, citing a lack of case law. Defendants’ second motion to dismiss held that the WARN Act refers only to the 50 states, not U.S. Territories or Associate States.
The Court found that the WARN Act “is applicable to Guam”, moreover, granting Plaintiffs’ leave to amend their complaint concerning employer status, and whether Plaintiffs would proceed with gross negligence or negligence per se claims. Defendants motioned a third time to dismiss the negligence claims in the amended complaint. This motion was granted as Plaintiffs were ‘at-will’ employees. Regardless, the Court found that Plaintiffs satisfied the criteria for class certification under their WARN Act claims.
The decision and order granting class certification can be read here.
H.R. 2357 (S. 1082), the United States Employee Ownership Bank Act, was introduced to Congress during the 115th Session. The Act, amends the Worker’s Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, requiring employers to offer affected employees “the opportunity to purchase the plant or facility though an employee stock-ownership plan or an eligible worker-owned cooperative” Furthermore, the Act, “require(s) the Department of the Treasury to establish the U.S. Employee Ownership Bank, which shall be authorized to provide, in accordance with specified terms, conditions, and other requirements, financial assistance to increase employee ownership of a company”.
In a major labor victory, H.B. 409, the Delaware Worker’s Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (DWARN) took effect on January 9th, 2019. Signed by Delaware Governor, John Carney on July 11th, 2018 the legislation requires 60 days written notice be given by employers of 100 employees or more to affected employees in circumstances of mass layoffs, plant closings, and relocation involving 50 employees or more working a combined 2000 hours a week at a single worksite. 60 days written notice must also be given to any union representation, the local elected official, and the Delaware Department of Labor Division of Employment and Training.
In March, the Vermont House of Representatives passed a bill (H. 758) that would require employers of 50 or more persons to provide forty-five days advance notice of mass layoffs and worksite closings. The bill is now before the Senate and is pending a third reading and possible amendment. Although the original billed would have provided greater notice (90 days) to more workers (employers of 20 or more persons), the pending bill represents positive action to mitigate the often devastating impact of mass layoffs and closings both to the local communities and afffected workers.
Additional information can be found at VTDIGGER.ORG here.
The record evidence would allow a jury to conclude that Holdings was so controlled by HoldCo that it lacked the ability to make any decisions independently, and that the resolution passed by HoldCo's board "authoriz[ing] Holdings to effectuate the Reduction in Force" was, in fact, direction from HoldCo to Holdings to undertake the layoffs. Authorizing layoffs is not just a prerogative of ownership—it's a function of being an employer, especially where, as here, HoldCo was the sole member and manager of Holdings, and the HoldCo board operated as Holdings' board. There is sufficient evidence in the record to allow a jury to conclude that Holdings was not free to implement its  own decisions, and that the layoffs were, in fact, directed by HoldCo.
"[B]ecause the balancing of the factors is not a mechanical exercise, if the de facto exercise of control was particularly striking... then liability might be warranted even in the absence of the other factors." Pearson, 247 F.3d at 504 (internal citation omitted). Here, there is sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that HoldCo directed the layoffs with no regard to Holdings' separate corporate form. Given this, we reverse the grant of summary judgment to HoldCo.
The decision in Guippone can be found here.
This is a close case, but when each factor is balanced according to its relative weight, Mr. Young’s allegations regarding the status of Fortis and Monomoy as the “single employer” of Mr. Young and the other class members are sufficient to survive Monomoy’s Motion to Dismiss. On the issue of highest importance—the decision to close the Fort Smith Facility—Mr. Young made a number of clear factual allegations regarding Monomoy’s involvement and exercise of control over Fortis. As was noted in Pearson, if sufficiently egregious, de facto exercise of control can be sufficient to warrant liability on its own. Pearson, 247 F.3d at 496.
The case is Young v. Fortis Plastics, L.L.C., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 137075 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 24, 2013). The court's opinion can be found here.
Innovative legislation has been introduced in the North Carolina General Assembly that would establish a Workforce Displacement Benefit Program to "provide uniform payments to workers who are displaced as a result of a mass layoff that is identified by the Governor as a major distress event." The primary sponsor of the House bill (No. 528) is Rep. Pierce. The bill was introduced on April 2, 2013 and was referred to the Committee on Appropriations. In the Senate, the primary sponsor is Sen Clark. The Senate bill (No. 579) was filed on April 1, 2013 and has been referred to the Committee on Rules and Operations.
Persistence will Prevail in the Ocean State!
For the fourth consecutive year, Rhode Island legislators have introduced before the General Assembly bills to adopt a state WARN Act. House bill 5508 and Senate bills 0230 and 0367 would establish the Rhode Island Worker Protection and Job Loss Notification Act. The bills were introduced in February and are pending before the House Labor Committee and Senate Labor Committee respectively.
Representatives Slater, Silva, Williams, and Diaz introduced the House bill and Senators Crowley, Pichardo, Goldin, Sosnowski, and Conley introduced the Senate versions. Kudos to each.
Minnesota legislators Rep. Ryan Winkler and Rep. Mike Sundin introduced a bill, HF 1266, on March 5, 2013. The bill would require employers to give at least 30 days notice before undertaking a worksite closing or mass layoff affecting 25 or more employees. The law would apply to any employer of 25 or more employees. By lowering the triggering thresholds, the bill seeks to expand worker protections by covering more employers and more displaced workers. As a trade-off for expanded coverage, the notice period is shorter than that found under federal law.
Earlier this year, Minnesota legislators introduced a bills (H.F. No. 2284 & H.F. No. 2446) that would allow the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Industry to issue an order requiring an employer to comply with the state's Early Warning System law. The Early Warning System statute presently "encourages", but does not require, employers to provide advance notice of plant closings, substantial layoffs, or relocation of operations. The bills would permit the Commissioner to enforce the law and also permit affected workers to obtain relief, including treble damages, for violations of the Commissioner's order. The proposed laws are pending before the House Jobs and Economic Development Finance Committee.
For the third consecutive year, a state WARN Act has been introduced before the Rhode Island legislature. House bill 7565 and Senate bill 2378 would establish the Rhode Island Worker Protection and Job Loss Notification Act.
The House and Senate bills contain several important innovations. The bills would apply to employers of 75 or more workers. Notice requirements would be triggered by a transfer of operations resulting in the termination of employment for 25 or more workers and also be triggered by mass layoffs of 50 or more workers or mass layoffs of 25 or more workers representing 1/3 of the employees at the establishment.
The Senate passed the bill in June, however the House continues to consider the bill in committee.
This site has listings of committee members and contact information for State Senators and House Representatives.
Indefinitely postponed. See Nebraska Legislature.

References: § 1400
 § 396
 § 84
 § 1
 § 11
 § 09
 § 09
 § 71
 § 284
 § 34
 § 860
 § 27
 § 4141
 § 285
 § 9
 § 185
 § 50
 § 411
 § 471
 v. 
 v. 
 v.