<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl" type="text/xsl" media="screen"?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css" type="text/css" media="screen"?><rss xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>WARN Articles</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/fedindex/24</link>
<description>Articles discussing issues under the Worker Adjustment Retraining Notification Act.</description>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jul 2008 16:07:49 EST</lastBuildDate>
<language>en-us</language>


<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/WarnArticles" type="application/rss+xml" /><feedburner:browserFriendly></feedburner:browserFriendly><item>
<title>WARN Act Implications of Transactions Affecting Multiple Facilities or Mobile Workers.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6619</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 6619</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Corporate transactions involving multiple locations and/or employees who regularly travel or regularly work outside of a fixed office can present complicated issues under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act). A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Meson v. GATX Technology Services Corp., No. 06-1942 (November 16, 2007), highlights this problem.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>WARN Act Protects Entitlement to Compensation, Not Work, Fourth Circuit Rules.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6521</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 6521</guid>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Faced with a relatively common sale-of-business scenario, the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond has ruled that a sporting goods manufacturer did not violate the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act when it shut down a facility, provided 60 days of notice to affected employees, told employees not to report to work and continued to provide pay and benefits during the next 60 days to all but 22 of the plant's 350 employees.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Construction Workers WARN Act Claims Denied: Site of Employment Was Actual Construction Site, not Corporate Headquarters.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6394</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 6394</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 14 Sep 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the decision of a federal trial court denying former construction workers claims that their termination violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The Court held that the workers were not covered by WARN because they did not demonstrate that 50 or more laid-off employees worked at a single site of employment.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Intended Sale of Business No Defense to WARN Act Violation.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6074</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 6074</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>The WARN Act requires 60 days notice before terminating employees due to a plant closing.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Timing is Everything -- Terminating Employees Before a Sale of Assets Closes Can Result in a WARN Act Violation (pdf).</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=6003</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 6003</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2007 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>What is an 'employment loss' under WARN in an asset sale?</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act Liability And Entrepreneurial Companies (pdf).</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=5183</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 5183</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 May 2006 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Recent court decisions involving Carolinas employers have broadened potential liability
exposure for venture capital and private equity firms involved with entrepreneurial
companies. Specifically, the recent decisions have expanded scenarios in which venture
capital and private equity firms may be considered joint employers with the companies
in which they make equity investments. As a result, the equity investors may be liable
under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and other
employment laws to employees of their portfolio companies.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>WARNing:  Employees Counted In Mass Layoffs May Appear Larger Than They Actually Are.</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=4419</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 4419</guid>
<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>In 1955, General Motors Chairman and CEO Charlie Wilson summarized GMs role as a leading economic indicator for the country with his famous proclamation: Whats good for General Motors is good for America.  Fifty years later, General Motors has announced that it is laying off 25,000 workers, amounting to 22 percent of its blue-collar workforce.  Not surprisingly, other regional and national companies are following GMs lead and announcing their own layoffs.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>An Employers Guide to the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) [PDF File].</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=2078</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 2078</guid>
<pubDate> EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>In light of the current uncertainties in our countrys economy, many employers may be faced with layoffs or facility shutdowns that trigger the requirements of the
Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>"WARN Watch--Employers Laying Off Workers Must Follow Notice Requirements"</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=2058</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 2058</guid>
<pubDate> EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Employers contemplating facility closings or reductions in force as a means of coping with the current business downturn must be aware of their legal obligations under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act ("WARN"), 29 U.S.C. Sections 2101, et seq., and interpretative regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor, 29 C.F.R. 639.1-10.</description>
</item>
<item>
<title>Highlights of the Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN).</title>
<link>http://www.elinfonet.com/newscount.php?popID=1923</link>
<guid isPermaLink="false">Article: 1923</guid>
<pubDate> EST</pubDate>
<author>elin@elinfonet.com (Employment Law Information Network)</author>
<description>Overview highlighting an employer's legal responsibilities and the statutory/regulatory protections for employees should an employer face a covered mass layoff or plant closing.</description>
</item>
</channel>

</rss>
