Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

New Jersey First in Nation to Require Severance for Mass Layoffs

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: February 4, 2020

Key Contacts

Back

New Jersey recently became the first state in the country to require larger employers to provide severance pay when conducting mass layoffs

New Jersey recently became the first state in the country to require larger employers to provide severance pay when conducting mass layoffs. The new law was prompted by the bankruptcy of Toys R Us, which resulted in more than 2,000 jobs lost in New Jersey.

New Jersey First to Require Severance for Mass Layoffs

The new law, S-3170, amends the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act to increase the minimum number of days of notice that employers of 100 or more full-time employees must give to employees when there is a mass layoff, plant closing, or transfer that will result in 50 or more employees losing their jobs. It also mandates that such employers provide severance pay equal to one week for each year of service, whether or not the employer provides required notice. 

WARN Act Notice Requirements

The New Jersey WARN Act requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide notice prior to laying off 50 or more full-time employees within a 30-day period. The notice requirements specifically apply to mass layoff and the transfer of operations/termination of operations. The new law increases the minimum number of days that covered employers must give to employees from 60 days to 90 days.

As amended by S-3170, a “mass layoff” under the WARN Act is any reduction in workforce which is not the result of a transfer or termination of operations and which results in the termination of employment at an establishment during any 30-day period for 50 or more of the full or part-time employees at or reporting to the establishment. Previously, the law only counted full-time workers.

The WARN Act also now more broadly defines an “establishment” as a place of employment that has been operated by an employer for a period longer than three years, which may be a single location or a group of locations, including any facilities located in New Jersey. The amendment thus brings retail chains under the purview of the WARN Act.

Under the WARN Act, notice must be provided to the following:

  • Each employee to be terminated and any collective bargaining units;
  • The chief elected official of the municipality; and
  • The Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development

The statute outlines what information must be provided in the layoff notice. It includes a statement of the reasons for the mass layoff or transfer or termination of operations, as well as a statement of any employee rights with respect to wages, severance pay, benefits, pension or other terms of employment as they relate to the termination, including any rights based on a collective bargaining agreement or other existing employer policy. A form for the notice can be found on the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development’s website. 

WARN Act Severance Requirements

The WARN Act previously required employers who failed to satisfy the notification requirements to pay severance to impacted employees. S-3170 makes the requirement to provide severance pay apply whether or not the employer provides the required notice. Pursuant to SB 3170:

Severance under this subsection shall be regarded as compensation due to an employee for back pay and losses associated with the termination of the employment relationship, and earned in full upon the termination of the employment relationship, notwithstanding the calculation of the amount of the payment with reference to the employee’s length of service.

Severance is equal to one week of pay for each full year of employment and is in addition to any other severance paid for any reason. Back pay provided by the employer to conform to the WARN law is credited towards meeting this severance pay criteria. S-3170 also requires an additional severance of four weeks of pay if the employers fails to satisfy the 90-day WARN Act notice requirement.

The new law takes effect on July 19, 2020.

If you have questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Sarah Tornetta, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-806-3364.

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests post image

Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests

If you’re considering closing your business, it’s crucial to understand that simply shutting your doors does not end your legal obligations. Unless you formally dissolve your business, it continues to exist in the eyes of the law—leaving you exposed to ongoing liabilities such as taxes, compliance violations, and potential lawsuits. Dissolving a business can seem […]

Author: Christopher D. Warren

Link to post with title - "Dissolving Your Business: Essential Legal Steps to Protect Your Interests"
The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions post image

The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions

Contrary to what many people think, corporate restructuring isn’t all doom and gloom. Revamping a company’s organizational structure, corporate hierarchy, or operations procedures can help keep your business competitive. This is particularly true during challenging times. Corporate restructuring plays a critical role in modern business strategy. It helps companies adapt quickly to market changes. Following […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "The Role of Corporate Restructuring in Mergers & Acquisitions"
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public post image

Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public

Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public"
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions post image

Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions

Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]

Author: Dan Brecher

Link to post with title - "Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions"
Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide post image

Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide

For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]

Author: Bryce S. Robins

Link to post with title - "Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide"
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination post image

Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination

Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]

Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh

Link to post with title - "Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!