> “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order”
> “an employer may not order a mass layoff, relocation, or termination at a covered establishment unless, 60 days before the order takes effect, the employer gives written notice of the order”
edit: Thank you for the clarification, appreciate the added insights.
Note, I don't benefit from this since I'm not in CA, but I still think it's a good idea.
(EU laws apply more broadly, but the California one is only in the event of mass layoffs)
I will draw attention to https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2012-title20-vol3/pd... which defines a mass layoff:
> (c) Mass layoff. (1) The term "mass layoff" means a reduction in force which first, is not the result of a plant closing, and second, results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for: (i) At least 33 percent of the active employees excluding part-time employees, and (ii) At least 50 employees, excluding part-time employees.
There is no difference of "for cause" or "not for cause" in the wording of the WARN act. There may be a difference in the contract (not removing a comic may be construed as "for cause") but if that employee was let go in the the frame of a reduction in force, they are likely covered by the WARN act too... of course, ask a lawyer.
In particular, employers with a bit more pragmatic/cautious legal department will avoid firing people for cause in the 30 day window where a layoff happens to avoid the possibility that the fired employee falls into the same category as those who are covered by the WARN act.
Only applies in the case of mass layoffs.