Thread regarding Optum layoffs

WARN Act (& what you’re entitled to)

Disclaimer: I’m trying to give some potentially helpful info but, at the end of the day, I’m not a lawyer, nor an expert on the WARN Act.

It doesn’t appear that any of the Optum layoffs were reported and on the WARN report, at least not for California. (Reference: https://edd.ca.gov/siteassets/files/jobs_and_training/warn/warn_report.xlsx)

Because there’s a penalty to pay for not reporting/giving a 60-day notice, my understanding is that employers would need to provide pay (severance) to employees, for 60 days, to bypass this penalty and not be held “accountable”. All that to say: if you’ve been working at the company for 120+ days and were given less than 60 days of severance, I’d look into this more.

by
| 1851 views | | 6 replies (last April 21, 2024) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1s7j95Dd

6 replies (most recent on top)

It appears 2 former employees from California launched a lawsuit about Optum violating the WARN act for previous layoffs. I've been trying to find what the outcome of that was. I don't believe they were successful. My thought was shoot if it's still ongoing we all need to jump on board.... still digging.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2hmb+1s7j95Dd

The Dept of Labor does not enforce or investigate ANY WARN Act complaints. It's a ruse.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hhi+1s7j95Dd

easy to get around. today you are locked out you get paid for 60 days. bo-m done

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @hhs+1s7j95Dd

They needed to report a WARN in CA but they didn't. It is a violation I think.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @lmg+1s7j95Dd

I’m OP & following up on the comment below:
If 500+ employees are laid off, then the % does not matter. Here is a breakdown of federal vs CA-based regulations based on the Warn Act: https://edd.ca.gov/en/jobs_and_training/layoff_services_warn

And, yes, I agree. So d-mb!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sqt+1s7j95Dd

from what I read about WARN (again...not a lawyer and not an expert), the act applies if 1/3 of the workforce is affected**. it looks like they cut around 10% which is an enormous number but still far below the 33% that would trigger WARN.

** can we just take a second to acknowledge how stupid "affected" is as a social equivalent to, "we're firing people for no reason other than our profit margins aren't as fat as we like" ??

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bsd+1s7j95Dd

Post a reply

: