Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the WARN Act) generally requires an employer with 100 or more full-time workers to provide 60 days' notice to employees who will be affected by a mass layoff or plant closing at a single site of employment. If an employer violates the notice requirement, each terminated employee is entitled to damages equal to: 1) back pay; and 2) benefits under employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), for the period of such violation up to 60 days (which, according to a majority of courts, is calculated based on the number of working days in such period). The WARN Act's notice requirement does not, however, mandate that employers continue to employ employees during the notice period, and the regulations promulgated by the U.S. Dept. of Labor (the DOL) explicitly state that the WARN Act does not dictate the nature of work to be performed ' or whether work must be performed ' after notice is provided. Further, the DOL has recognized that providing employees with full pay and benefits in respect of the 60-day notice period effectively precludes any damages under the WARN Act.
As a result, in lieu of providing notice of termination, many employers pay employees an amount equal to base salary and benefits for 60 days, and terminate them immediately. As a technical matter, this approach is not impermissible; nonetheless, employers often fail to take into account all elements of compensation and benefits when valuing payments in lieu of notice. This article addresses certain elements of such payments that are often overlooked by employers.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.