It’s been said there is a new 14 day off the books notification happening. That goes against the WARN Act ... even TMOs layoffs yesterday mention 60 days in accordance with WARN. How is AT&T planning on getting around this law?
15 replies (most recent on top)
The Warn act was paused by Executive order at the start of Covid.
Whether a reduction in force prompted by COVID-19 would qualify as an “unforeseeable business circumstance” is a fact-specific inquiry, and will depend on the actions of employers compared to that of others in its market. Employers may be affected by COVID-19 differently. Case law makes clear however, that no employer is held to the standard of hindsight when evaluating whether a business circumstance is unforeseeable.
What are the penalties if an employer violates WARN?
Violating WARN can result in significant legal liability for employers, including back pay and benefits for each day of violation to each aggrieved employee up to 60 days, and $500 in civil penalties for each day an employer fails to provide notice to a unit of local government. Back pay and benefits can be reduced by wages and benefits paid during the violation period or by any other payments to the employees not legally obligated. An employer may avoid the $500 civil penalty if it provides back pay to each aggrieved employee within three weeks of separation. Note that an aggrieved employee, employee union representative or unit of local government all have standing to file suit in federal court for a WARN violation.
Because WARN provides that the maximum employer liability for damages (including back pay and benefits) is 60 days, providing employees with full pay and benefits precludes any damages, i.e., “pay in lieu of notice.” However, nothing in WARN permits pay in lieu of notice, nor do the regulations recognize such a concept.
If you are laid off and only get 14 days, complain about this to HR and ask about it as well. The WARN act does state that "unforseeable business circumstances" allow a company to skip the 60 days... HOWEVER, it also states that the measure of those "unforseeable business circumstances" is measure by how other companines in the same field reacted.
In other words, are Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint having to do layoffs because of COVID? If so, then they can claim unforseeable. If none of those other companies are doing COVID layoffs, then you have a claim that ATT is full of it and just being sh!tty!! Fight it, complain, and if HR/legal don't budge, file a complaint with Labor Dept.!
Penalty is 500/day for the difference of 60 days to when you were laid off, PLUS the owed severance.
Can You Say COVID 19, It' a natural disaster.
In the usbank interview or 6/16 online meeting mCelfresh mentioned that the company is still profitable in current times. Shouldn't that neglect any attempt to use those exemptions?
Hey now, McElfresh already let us know that he's doing us a HUGE favor by making it 14 days instead of sixty. You see, this way you don't have to waste your time looking for internal positions that don't exist, you can spend that time looking for another job.
Of course, anyone with a brain knows that the two aren't mutually exclusive - they could give 60 days and still tell us not to bother looking for internal positions. But Jeffy sees himself as a Master of Spin (see his pathetic attempts at debunking the Tucker Carlson piece as just one example) - and I'm sure thinks that nobody below L5 "leadership" would notice that.
They only do warn notice where they lay off the required numbers of people. With evry one scattered around the country, they only need on when they close a center or large number of people in one spot. Of course when they put out an offer to leave they don’t need one.
My dollar is on WARN act considerations being part of the delay. There have already been lawsuits filed against other companies. Scores of companies have announced COVID related layoffs, but are complying with WARN act. It's a hard sell. I would have thought AT&T would want to avoid the bad optics in a very competitive market (especially when T-Mobile is giving 60 days), but senior leadership has made one terrible move after another so no surprise.
The way T gets around the law suits is the last document you sign during the exit process, before you receive ANY severance, is a contract saying you let T off the hook for all law suits. If you want to sue T, don't sign that and you don't get the severance.
silly people, there are a lot more lawyers in this company vs. the Deep State Dept (DSD)
In order for him to bypass it it needs to apply. They have teams of HR and legal people get around it state by state And even if in violation severance in most cases would take care of any restitution.
So I get daily emails telling me how to be a better person and they bypass the WARN Act on a technicality?
Not just playing the legal angles of WARN Act exceptions that may qualify, but, they are also careful to label it a SURPLUS, and not a LAYOFF. They switched to that model in the late '90's early '00's.
40 thousand layoffs, once the dust settled by EOY, saving 2 months salary . con-19 GENIUSES , LAWYERUP PEOPLE
There are 3 exemptions to the WARN ACT. My guess is they are using this one - Unforeseeable business circumstances. This exception applies to closings and layoffs that are caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would otherwise have been required.
They are most likely using COVID-19 as unforeseen impact to the business. I think that is why JM mentioned it in his initial email.