Leslie Perkins

by Leslie Perkins and Karina Sargsian

With the remote work model becoming increasingly prevalent and technology continuing to reshape the way people work, certain employment laws struggle to keep up with the evolving realities of the modern workforce.

One such law causing confusion as to the extent of its reach in the remote work era is the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”). At its basic core, the WARN Act requires covered employers to provide 60 days advance notice when, among other things, a mass layoff is on the horizon. (More on the specifics below).

Karina Sargsian

The WARN Act defines a mass layoff as an employment loss of a certain number of employees at a “single site of employment.” This raises the issue as to whether layoffs of remote employees trigger the WARN Act at all.

While the WARN Act does not specifically call out remote employees as part of its analysis, this does not mean that companies with remote employees are in the clear of the WARN Act’s reach.

Several courts have taken the position that remote workers are not an excepted class outside the purview of the WARN Act, rather the issue appears to be fact-specific and requires substantive analysis. Meaning, if a company gets sued for violating the WARN Act, it is not a defense to claim that the majority of its employees were remote employees and therefore they have not met the minimum number of employees required to trigger the WARN Act at a “single site of employment.” Read more >>