4 ms·

But layoffs in California of 50 or more people in a 30-day period require the employer give 60-day notice to affected employees as a result of the California Wo

But layoffs in California of 50 or more people in a 30-day period require the employer give 60-day notice to affected employees as a result of the California Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act[0]. This is often handled by giving 60+ days of compensation as severance with ~0 notice. If they can get away with saying it's "for cause" then they can claim it's not a layoff and therefore not covered by the WARN Act. ---- [0]https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN https://edd.ca.gov/en/Jobs_and_Training/Layoff_Services_WARN

shagie 4y ago
You are describing garden leave ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_leave ) which is often part of a the WARN layoff approach - but it is distinct and different than severance. It is completely possible to say "we are going to lay off these 50 people on January 3, 2023" but not actually have them leave (and instead require them to come into the office for the next four weeks to help with knowledge transfer). That fills the requirement for WARN - the employees know that they are getting laid off and have time to find a new job. In tech jobs, where IP is important, the garden leave approach is often taken because it limits the opportunity for an employee to engage in IP theft - but it is not required. When I was laid off from Netapp in 2009, I was informed I was going to be laid off on March 16th. My last day was May 15th, 2009 and then I had a severance package that was 3(?) weeks of pay for every year I had worked there. I could have left on my own accord in March if I wanted to, but my severance package was tied to me completing knowledge transfer for the next 60 days at which time the layoff would be complete.