Legislative and Regulatory News for the Week of June 21

The following is a summary of the labor- and employment-related regulatory and legislative news for the week of June 21, 2009:

Agency Changes

The Senate confirmed the nomination of Jane Oates to be the assistant secretary of the Department of Labor’s Employment and Training Administration (ETA).

Business Restructuring

The FOREWARN Act was reintroduced in both the House and Senate. This bill would amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act to expand mass layoff and plant closing notification requirements, and increase employer penalties for violations.

Discrimination in the Workplace

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) reintroduced the Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2009, a bill that would create employment protections for workers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.

Employee Benefits

The House Committee on Education and Labor passed the 401(k) Fair Disclosure for Retirement Security Act, a bill that would require the disclosure of hidden 401(k) fees, prevent conflicts of interest in the provision of investment advice, and grant funding relief to pension plans.

Health Care

House Democrats released a draft of their massive healthcare reform bill.

FOREWARN Act Reintroduced in House and Senate

On Thursday, members of both the House and Senate reintroduced the Federal Oversight, Reform, and Enforcement of the WARN (FOREWARN) Act (H.R. 3042, S. 1374).  This legislation would amend the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act by requiring more and smaller employers to notify workers of mass firings or plant closings and increasing employer penalties and enforcement mechanisms.

According to a press release issued by Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), the chief sponsor of the Senate bill, the FOREWARN Act would apply to employers with at least 75 employees, reduced from the current 100-employee threshold required to initiate coverage. Additionally, the Act would reduce the number of laid off employees needed to constitute a plant closing from 50 to 25, and lower the mass layoff trigger. According to Sen. Brown, this lower threshold would protect employees in both manufacturing and service firms. In addition, the FOREWARN Act would require an employer to provide 90-day written notice (up from the current 60-day notice mandate) to employees and appropriate state and local governments before ordering a plant closing or mass layoff. The bill expands the recipients of such notification to the Secretary of Labor, elected officials including the governor, member(s) of Congress, state representatives, and union leaders if applicable. The notification must include the reason for the plant closing or mass layoff, whether the employer has jobs elsewhere, and a statement of each employee’s right to wages and benefits. The bill would also give the DOL the authority to enforce the WARN Act, and would increase employer penalties for violations to double back pay. Under current law, an employer is only liable for back pay.

The FOREWARN Act was first introduced in 2007. Given the current state of the economy and increased unemployment and employer closing rates, this bill could garner more support this time around.

The House FOREWARN Act bill has been referred to House Committee on Education and Labor. The Senate companion bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.

Employers Face Additional Employee Notice of Layoffs Requirements

Given the bleak economic forecast, it is inevitable that layoffs will continue to occur as the next Administration takes office. As a result, expect the reintroduction of the Federal Oversight, Reform, and Enforcement of the WARN Act (FOREWARN Act), first introduced in both the House and Senate (and co-sponsored by President-elect Obama) in 2007 (S. 1792 and H.R. 3662). Given the almost daily announcements of major companies laying off significant numbers of employees, this bill could get immediate attention. If enacted, this law will:

  • Revise the definitions of “employer,” “plant closing,” and “mass layoff” found in the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act to cover more and smaller employers.
  • Require an employer to provide a 90-day written notice (up from the 60-day requirement) to employees and appropriate state and local governments before ordering a plant closing or mass layoff, thus forcing employers to predict their economic futures.
  • Require the employer to notify the U.S. Secretary of Labor within 60 days of a closing or layoff.
  • Make employers liable for double back pay in the event of a notice violation.
  • Empower the Secretary of Labor to bring civil action on behalf of employees.

In essence, more and smaller employers would be required to foresee economic downturns and notify workers of mass layoffs or plant closings, and would be required to give more notice and face stiffer penalties in the event of a violation. Because President-elect Obama emphasized his support for the unemployed and middle class, and because many in Congress might find it hard to explain a vote against giving laid off employees more notice in the current economic environment, employers can expect serious consideration of the FOREWARN Act or similar legislation.

This trend toward increased employee protection in the event of a layoff is already evident at the state level. A growing number of states have passed their own notice laws. New York’s new WARN Act, for example, requires employers to provide 90 days’ notice prior to a plant closing, mass layoff or relocation occurring on or after February 1, 2009. Contrary to previous written statements it has issued, New York’s Department of Labor is now stating that an employer planning a layoff shortly after February 1, would have to provide notice prior to the law’s effective date to meet the 90-day requirement. The New York law applies to private employers with 50 or more employees who lay off at least 25 employees. Thus, this act not only provides for broader coverage and notice requirements than those articulated in the federal WARN Act, but offers a lower threshold for triggering those requirements. Some other state laws do the same.