The Eleventh Circuit Could Tackle Whether COVID-19 is a Disaster for WARN Purposes with Companies Facing Continued Layoffs
Time 4 Minute Read
The Eleventh Circuit Could Tackle Whether COVID-19 is a Disaster for WARN Purposes with Companies Facing Continued Layoffs

While COVID-19 may have hit the business community like a hurricane, whether the pandemic, in fact, qualifies for a natural disaster exception under the federal law requiring businesses to warn employees of impending layoffs, remains an open question.

This February, a federal judge paved the way for the Eleventh Circuit to weigh in on whether a class action can proceed against an employer who was forced to lay off employees due to COVID-19.  That case, Benson v. Enter. Leasing Co. of Orlando, LLC, is one of the first to look at the application of pandemic-related layoffs to the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. § 2100 et seq. (“WARN Act”). Underscoring the case’s importance to the business community, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has just filed an amicus or “friend of the court” brief asking the Eleventh Circuit to take up the case and provide “much-needed guidance” to other courts across the country.

The central issue in Benson is whether the pandemic qualifies under the “Natural Disaster Exception” to the WARN Act.  The WARN Act requires businesses with more than 100 employees to provide 60 days’ notice of plant closings and mass layoffs. 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(2) and (3).  The Act provides several exceptions to this notice requirement, including in the event of a natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake or drought.

The employer in the Benson case argued that the Natural Disaster Exception applies to pandemic layoffs, excusing the employer from providing notice otherwise required under the WARN Act. The district court, however, held that for the exception to apply, the layoffs must be a “direct” result of a natural disaster, such as when a factory is destroyed overnight by a flood. Layoffs caused by the pandemic, according to the district court, were “indirectly” caused and were “more akin to a factory that closes after nearby flooding depressed the local economy.”

The employer moved to certify the issue for appeal and the district court granted the motion on February 4.  In addition to the employer, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is also urging the Eleventh Circuit to take the appeal and consider the broader impact of the district court’s decision on the business community.

“It is vital that businesses across the Nation have that ability to cope with sudden, unforeseen shifts to their industry when a national disaster strikes. But under the district court’s decision (particularly given the steep penalties for WARN Act infringement) companies may face significant liability for making tough decisions in the face of a pandemic or hurricane suddenly undermining their business,” said the Chamber of Commerce.

Notably, mass layoffs or plant closings caused by the COVID-19 pandemic may also be covered by the separate, “unforeseen business circumstances” exception that relaxes notice requirements when layoffs are triggered by a “sudden, dramatic, unexpected action or condition outside the employer’s control.”  20 C.F.R. § 639(b)(1).  The district court did not certify a question related to this exception to the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, unlike the Natural Disaster Exception, the “Unforeseen Business Circumstances” exception does not allow employers to forego notice altogether but, instead, requires that they provide “as much notice as is practicable.”  Whether a particular mass layoff or plant closing falls within this exception and, if so, whether the employer provided “as much notice as is practicable,” would depend on the particular facts at issue.

  • Partner

    Ryan has a national practice focused on representing employers and executives in complex labor and employment litigation.  Ryan’s litigation experience is both broad and deep, and he is particularly skilled in defending ...

  • Associate

    Veronica’s practice focuses on employment and labor law. Veronica’s litigation practice focuses on complex employment litigation, including defending employers against allegations of breach of employment and separation ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 5 Minute Read

The Fourth Circuit issued an opinion in Messer et al. v. Bristol Compressors International, LLC et. al. that should serve as a cautionary tale to employers planning to use severance agreements when implementing layoffs.  There, the court considered three questions.  First, whether Bristol Compressors validly eliminated its severance plan before terminating Plaintiffs’ employment.  Second, whether certain Plaintiffs who signed a Stay Bonus Letter Agreement (“SBLA”) waived their claims against Bristol Compressors.  And third, whether four of the Plaintiffs received adequate notice under the WARN Act before their employment was terminated.

Time 3 Minute Read

On October 12, 2022, the UK Information Commissioner's Office (“ICO”) launched a public consultation on its draft guidance on employers’ obligations when monitoring at work (“Draft Guidance”). In addition, the ICO has published an impact scoping document, which outlines some of the context and potential impacts of the Draft Guidance (“Impact Scoping Document”).

Time 3 Minute Read

Over the last two years, courtesy of a once-a-century pandemic, government-mandated business closures, nationwide stay-at-home orders, and—unprecedented—disruptions to the global supply chain have illuminated, previously unknown, vulnerabilities across a whole host of industries. Would anyone have seriously questioned the viability of office space two years ago? Now, inflation, in keeping with the recent chaos, may be upending the viability of another tried-and-tested institution: the supply contract.

Time 2 Minute Read

The FTC, through the Department of Justice, has entered a settlement with two companies and the joint corporate President for falsely claiming that the LED lighting products and personal protective equipment (PPE) they sold were “Assembled in the USA,” “Buy American Act Compliant,” “Manufactured in the USA” and “100% Made in the USA,” despite having been imported from China. According to the FTC’s complaint, the defendants, Axis LED Group, LLC, ALG-Health LLC and Adam J. Harmon, went so far as to peel “Made in China” stickers off the products and replace them with Made in USA labels. The FTC had previously investigated and warned the companies, and received assurances that they would remove unqualified Made in USA claims from their marketing materials. The defendants subsequently were investigated by the National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) over safety superiority claims for their KN95 masks.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page