employment
Explain WARN act compliance after-the-fact?
<p>In recent news, a major company (Twitter) abruptly laid off a large number of staff effective immediately, apparently in violation of the Federal <a href="https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/layoffs/warn" rel="nofollow noreferrer">WARN</a> Act and the similar California-specific act, which requires 60-day notice for significant layoffs.</p>
<p>Then, in an apparent effort to comply with the act retroactively, the company announced that now-former-employees would continue to be paid and receive benefits for 60-days (but would still be locked out of company resources, and not actually &quot;working&quot; for the company).</p>
<p>Is there a basis or precedent for this?</p>
<p>It seems to me that the WARN violation already occurred, and attempts to retroactively address it with a re-branded severance package should be futile.  But it also seems incredible that such a large company, presumably with an well-staffed legal department could make such an unforced error.</p>
<p>Is there legal nuance here that I'm missing?</p>

<p>The US Department of Labor <a href="https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ETA/layoff/pdfs/_EmployerWARN2003.pdf" rel="noreferrer">Employer's Guide to Advance Notice of Closings and Layoffs</a> states</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Can I pay my workers their salary and benefits for 60 days in lieu of notice?</strong></p>
<p>Neither the Act nor the regulations recognize the concept of pay in lieu of notice. WARN requires notice, making no provision for any alternative. Failure to give notice does a significant disservice to workers and undermines other services that are part of the purpose of the WARN Act. However, since WARN provides that the maximum employer liability for damages, including back pay and benefits, is for the period of violation up to 60 days, <strong>providing your employees with full pay and benefits for the 60-day period effectively precludes any relief.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>(emphasis mine)</p>
<p>So from the Federal perspective, so-called <em><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pay_in_lieu_of_notice" rel="noreferrer">pay in lieu</a></em> is technically against the WARN act, but no penalty may occur.</p>
<p>Note that payment in lieu is not unique to this situation at all. For regulated high-trust industries, such as banking and aviation, pay in lieu is basically required due to the risk of employee sabotage.</p>
