Would staggered layoffs circumvent the WARN Act&#39;s protection against mass layoffs? The U.S. federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Act (WARN) states that employers with 100 or more employees must provide at least 60 days advance notice before a mass layoff affecting 50 or more employees. Are there any protections against an employer circumventing the WARN act by staggering layoffs over multiple days? For example, could an employer lay off 200 people without notice by laying off 40 employees each day for a week?
Are there any protections against an employer circumventing the WARN act by staggering layoffs over multiple days? For example, could an employer lay off 200 people without notice by laying off 40 employees each day for a week? The WARN Act's definition of layoffs measures the number of employees laid off in &quot;any 30-day period&quot;. 29 U.S.C. § 2101. So, to lay off 200 people without notice, it would have to stagger it at 40 people a month over five months, not over five days.
The answer to your question is that your manager cannot ask you to undertake training without payment. All employees are entitled to be paid for the work they have done. They are also entitled to be paid if they are ready and willing to work but their employer has not provided them with any work to do, unless your employment contract says otherwise. https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/work/rights-at-work/rights-to-pay/ Zero hours contracts can be very complicated legal issues, but you are entitled to be paid for the time you spend there doing what your employer has asked you to do. However, if your employment were to be terminated due to a disagreement then you may not be able to make any claim before an Employment Tribunal as you do not yet have a sufficient length of employment. There are many legal complications, and each case is different and individual. Giving general legal advice is beset with all kinds of problems. You may wish to direct your employer to the Citizens' Advice page. If they do not agree to either pay you for your time there or allow you to leave when they do not wish to pay you then your best option might be to seek employment elsewhere.
&gt; What does that last sentence mean? It means that federal law does not provide premium pay on Sundays and Holidays the way MA does. &gt; Should I be getting paid more than I am? No. Check out G.L. c. 151, § 1A: the hours so worked on Sunday or certain holidays shall be excluded from the calculation of overtime pay In other words, take your eight hours on Sunday and subtract that from the total hours for the week. That number minus 40 is how many OT hours you get. This calculation is called crediting - basically the employer credits your time-and-a-half Sunday work against your total hours for the week. Crediting is allowed and it is why you do not get the Sunday pay on top of your overtime. If you want to get in the weeds take a look at Swift v Autozone where the MA Supreme Court describes why crediting is allowed. Also see 29 U.S.C. 207(h)(2) which tells us that extra compensation is creditable..
According to your description, you have a contract to work 200 hours, and this must be accomplished between May 12 and July 10. Apparently you are 25 hour short on that obligation, which may mean that you probably will be in breach of contract. I don't see what error there is w.r.t. the date: whatever the contract says, that is what you agreed to. Perhaps you are wholely responsible for the shortfall of hours, or perhaps the employer bears some responsibility (e.g. making it impossible for you to work). It sounds like the employer is offering you an accommodation so that you can fulfill the hours part of the contract, by extending the termination date. Technically, you also have to do the work by a particular date, but a reasonable delay in performance is standardly allowed under contract law, unless the contract has a &quot;time is of the essence&quot; clause which states that completion by the specific date is essential to the contract. If not, then there is reasonable flexibility in completion. Doing less than you contracted for, on the other hand, is not a standardly-available option. Pursuant to the comment, it sort of sounds like the employer made it impossible to satisfy the conditions of the contract, and wants to use the end of contract date as a form of hardball to extract additional hours (i.e. &quot;we'll sue you for breach of contract for not having done this by the deadline, unless you agree to work an additional 15 hours&quot;). Hardcore deadlines without a time is of the essence clause don't support a claim for damages in case of minor delay, and even less so when the employer bears responsibility for the delay. Consulting an attorney (bring in the contract and all), in this case, would be a good idea, if they are hinting at a lawsuit if you just walk away 15 hours short, or won't accept your compromise.
Contracts do not have to be written and signed on pieces of paper, except in a few cases specified by law. Writing style (ordinary style of talking vs. high-register formulaic language) does not affect the validity or a writing in contract law. You do have something in writing. What matters most is what he actually said (exact words, not your belief of what it must have meant), and how it relates to any existing contractual obligation. For example if the message says &quot;You're fired, turn your badge in at the desk. I'll think about giving you two weeks pay&quot;, that's not an enforceable promise. But your existing contract might say &quot;You get 2 weeks severance pay when we fire you&quot;, and that can't be walked by by saying &quot;I'll thinking about it&quot;. And it also depends on whether there are any laws mandating severance pay (but California does not have any mandatory severance pay law).
Quitting before the start date: is the non compete enforceable? The non-compete is unenforceable unless the employer has provided you with material information that you can use to the detriment of the employer. Even in that case, the non-compete as outlined in your description seemingly exceeds the legitimate interests of the employer (see art. 2089 of the Civil Code of Québec). This means that the non-compete clause would be curtailed in court because the employer cannot prove that his business (or market share) encompasses the area depicted in the clause. The reason of being of non-compete clauses is to protect the employer from a potential misuse of information the employee obtained pursuant to his employment, such as trade secrets and information about clients. The fact that you are a fresh graduate suggests that you are dealing with just some typical intermediary who really has no &quot;trade secrets&quot; and who is not providing you with key information, let alone for a job that is scheduled to start five months later. Non-compete clauses that are overly broad contravene public policy in that they would singlehandedly exclude civilians from the labor market and disproportionately impair free trade.
I believe that legally they can't force her to use sick leave since she has met the 40 hours minimum required as a salaried employee. Is this correct? Unfortunately, as far as the Department of Labor (DoL) is concerned, the employer is correct here, provided that this is company policy. First, there is no &quot;40 hours minimum required&quot;, the DoL simply says that a salaried (exempt) employee must be paid the full salary for any week in which the employee performs any work, regardless of the number of days or hours worked. This is then limited by the &quot;allowable deductions: Circumstances in Which the Employer May Make Deductions from Pay Deductions from pay are permissible when an exempt employee: is absent from work for one or more full days for personal reasons other than sickness or disability; for absences of one or more full days due to sickness or disability if the deduction is made in accordance with a bona fide plan, policy or practice of providing compensation for salary lost due to illness; to offset amounts employees receive as jury or witness fees, or for military pay; for penalties imposed in good faith for infractions of safety rules of major significance; or for unpaid disciplinary suspensions of one or more full days imposed in good faith for workplace conduct rule infractions. Also, an employer is not required to pay the full salary in the initial or terminal week of employment, or for weeks in which an exempt employee takes unpaid leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act. (Source: dol.gov) Emphasis Mine This means that as long as the employer has a policy or practice requiring the employee to use Paid Time Off (PTO) for sickness (sick-days), then the employer is allowed to make deductions from the employee's salary for those days. So in short, yes, the employer can require that the employee use PTO to cover sick days, regardless of the actual number of hours worked in that week, month, year, etc. There is currently no federal requirement for employers to provide paid sick leave, although some states like California may have local laws.
These offer letters typically state explicitly that the offer is contingent on approval by the relevant governing board. This is sufficient to thwart promissory estoppel. Such highest-level overturning are frequent enough in the US that a reasonable person would know that the principal (for instance) does not have final authority to make a contract. There is no requirement that the board justify their decision to you. If you file a lawsuit alleging racial or religious discrimination, and if you can make a prima facie case for discrimination,you might survive the motion for dismissal, and the board might be required to say why they didn't hire you.