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
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
There's current litigation in the ongoing Beach Boys litigation saga. A lawsuit filed in 2019 against Nevada residents Mike Love and his wife Jacquelyne in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada that alleges inaccurate payment by the Loves under the retainer agreement and seeks $84.5 million in damages.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.