In the post-pandemic world, mass layoffs and remote work are the norms. Prior WARN Act decisions have not taken these factors into account, so the number of employees considered to report to a single site of employment may be drastically reduced or eliminated. Before making any layoff decisions, employers should consider hiring an employment attorney with experience in this area. A well-meaning employer could find itself facing costly defense fees, particularly if a WARN Act lawsuit is filed against it as a class action.
Class action lawsuit
A recent case involving a WARN Act-related class action lawsuit has highlighted some key lessons for employers. This is a case that highlights how important it is to follow the rules and make sure layoff notices are adequate. In April 2020, Enterprise Rent-A-Car announced layoffs in Orlando and Tampa. The plaintiffs, all terminated employees, filed suit in district court, alleging that Enterprise did not provide sufficient WARN Act notices. Enterprise argued that the law was not applicable in this case because of unforeseeable business circumstances such as natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic.
A WARN Act class action lawsuit has several distinct elements. For example, it can be difficult to determine if layoffs were properly documented and what evidence exists to support the plaintiffs’ claim. In addition, it is difficult to predict if such lawsuits will increase the number of workers seeking compensation. If this is the case, the WARN Act could have a profound impact on employers’ bottom lines.
A single site of employment issue
One of the biggest questions in a WARN Act lawsuit is how to address a single site of employment. While the WARN Act is designed to protect employees from unsafe working conditions, it also addresses the problem of work-from-home arrangements. The ruling is significant because it reveals the importance of determining a single site of employment. It also clarifies what the law says about the definition of a single site of employment.
This issue often arises in WARN Act lawsuits because the plaintiffs are not based at one location. In this case, the plaintiffs were laid off at different locations, so the court was forced to decide which employees should be classified. Ultimately, the court ruled that the WARN Act applies to travelers, so the plaintiffs won their case. The plaintiffs’ case will now go on to the appeals process.
Defenses
Employers who violate the WARN Act may be held liable for back pay if the violation results in less than 60 days’ notice. However, the law has exceptions for natural disasters and certain unforeseeable business events. The Enterprise case, which was filed by the same attorneys as the WARN Act lawsuit, will determine whether the unforeseeable business circumstances defense applies in the company’s case. In either case, the court will award damages to affected employees.
WARN Act remedies do not confer a statutory right to a jury trial. While the WARN Act does not guarantee the right to a jury trial, the Seventh Amendment guarantees such a right in common law suits. Consequently, the WARN Act claims differ from other types of relief. Although the WARN Act has limited liability provisions, the remedy provided by the law is still significant. Thus, the plaintiff’s attorney should have evidence of the employer’s good faith to ensure that any remedy sought is appropriate.
Class representative
Before a Plaintiff can qualify as a class representative in a WARN Act lawsuit, she must show that she is typical of the Class Members. A putative class member must have a common interest or be injured in the same way as the other class members. Unless the WARN Act says otherwise, the class representative must be a similar employee. To be qualified as a class representative, an individual must have a corresponding degree of expertise or knowledge about the company’s products.
The predominance question in a WARN Act lawsuit relates to the definition of a “single site of employment” and GDIT has denied the Plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. The DOL’s regulations on single-site employment under the WARN Act can be found in Subpart 6 of 20 C.F.R. SS 639.1. Plaintiffs may claim that the company that terminated them did not provide them with proper notice.
