Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The 'Faltering Company' and 'Unforeseen Business Circumstances' Exceptions Under The WARN Act

By David Van Pelt
July 07, 2017

As most informed employers and their counsel know, the federal WARN Act requires companies that maintain a facility of 100 or more full-time employees to provide no less than 60 days' written notice to employees affected by a mass layoff or facility closure. Failure to provide such notice creates significant exposure — back pay and benefits for each employee for each day that the notice is not provided, in addition to possible civil penalties. Moreover, because the statutes necessarily involve a large number of similarly situated employees, judges often find WARN claims suitable for class certification.

The predictable response of many employers faced with the issue of whether, and when, to issue WARN notices to employees is that they simply do not know 60 days before a shutdown of operations that it will be necessary — in many cases, employers have only a few days' notice (or less) before a decision to shutter a facility is made. Indeed, employers correctly conclude that providing WARN notice to employees as soon as a shutdown appears reasonably likely will prompt the type of response from employees that would harm the company's efforts to rescue the business — including loss of workforce morale, employee defections, and adverse publicity. The alternative, of course, is to refrain from providing notice as long as possible, and risk significant liability.

The WARN Act contains several affirmative defenses that are designed to address this conundrum, and provide employers with a complete defense to liability under the statute when a company's exigent condition forces an immediate cessation of operations. These exceptions to the WARN notice obligations are identified as the “Faltering Company” and “Unforeseen Business Circumstances” exceptions. Codified together (at 29 U.S.C. sec. 2102(b)(1) — (2)), the two exceptions are often analyzed together and confused. They are distinct, however, and employers faced with possible pending layoffs or facility closures should consider both of them independently. This article identifies the key features (including the benefits and drawbacks) of each.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

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.

Warehouse Liability: Know Before You Stow! Image

As consumers continue to shift purchasing and consumption habits in the aftermath of the pandemic, manufacturers are increasingly reliant on third-party logistics and warehousing to ensure their products timely reach the market.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?