|
September, 2010 - Vol. 18 No. 9
Workforce Reduction
Our expert provides some workforce reduction guidance
to help you navigate a necessary evil in these tough times and avoid employment
litigation claims.
By Mark E. Terman, Esq.
Whether one can contend the recession is waning, a perfect storm affecting
non-union, private employers stubbornly lingers. As of June 2010, seasonally
adjusted unemployment rates were 12.3 percent in California and 9.5 percent
nationally. Compared to a year earlier, the numbers are up 1.3 percent in
California and about the same nation-wide. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reports that more than 45 percent have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks.
The BLS further reveals nearly 10,300 Extended Mass Layoffs Events (i.e.,
layoffs of 50 or more employees from single employers for over 31 days) from
January through June 2010 that resulted in the separation of more than 987,000
workers.
With replacement employment still difficult to find for so many, we are seeing a
marked increase in the number of employment litigation claims filed. Published
EEOC statistics, for example, show that there have been more than 90,000 charges
filed by employees against employers in each of the last two years. While
employers may still need to layoff employees in this economy, how layoffs are
conducted and considering alternatives can provide some shelter from this
perfect storm.
Reduction in Workforce Overview
A team of decision makers should be selected who are able to credibly and
objectively:
- Define and document the good faith business reason for
layoffs.
- Determine and document the criteria for those to be
selected for layoffs.
- Consider alternatives to layoffs.
- Make decisions that remaining personnel can view as
fair.
- Avoid or reduce the potential for discrimination,
retaliation and other claims.
Planning the RIF
Most courts will be reluctant to interfere with an employer’s decisions that are
based on good faith business reasons for reduction in workforce (RIF),
particularly if the reasons are credible, well defined and documented. Good
faith business reasons include: economic necessity (e.g., employer’s survival,
loss of business or contract, cost-cutting measures needed), reorganization or
consolidation of job functions, elimination of functions or positions that are
redundant and job functions being replaced with or reduced by technology. An
example, assuming it’s based on actual verifiable business data, could be: “due
to a XX percent downturn in our revenue, we need to reduce our payroll costs by
YY percent.”
Think through and document the criteria to be used for selection of employees
for layoff. One way to develop the criteria is by asking: What work needs to be
done? What skills are necessary to do the work? Who has those skills? Who are
the top performers? Note that the first two questions are completely blind to
specific people. This can provide a solid and objective foundation. Then,
internally test the criteria by evaluating whether the criteria support the
stated business reason for the workforce reduction.
Other factors can be used such as seniority (by service years or specific job
function/position), elimination of job functions and independent evaluation
process (the more objective, the better). Avoid subjective factors such as
“flexibility” or “commitment” as they can leave room for a challenge that they
are “code” for unlawful factors such as age discrimination. If employee cost is
a criterion, also consider positive value of employees due to skills and
experience. If using performance evaluations as a selection tool, review
multiple years’ evaluations and consider whether they are fair and objective. If
an employee’s last evaluation was high, why is the company planning to let this
high performer go? If the last evaluation was low when prior evaluations were
high, consider whether there is some defect in the review or the reviewers’
perspectives.
Certainly do not consider legally protected class status in selection process,
such as: race, color, creed, sex, pregnancy, gender identity, age (40 or over),
national origin, ancestry, physical or mental disability, veteran status,
current military status, marital or registered domestic partner status, medical
condition (e.g., cancer), sexual orientation, genetic factors and approved leave
of absence.
Once the business reason, selection criteria and preliminary selection decisions
have been made and documented, the employer should prepare a communication plan
to convey its decision making with clarity. It’s helpful to prepare
communications templates in advance for delivering the news to affected
employees and moving the conversation from decisions that have already been made
to “where do we go from here?”
Likewise, communications need to be made to remaining managers and employees to
create a consistent message about how/why the decisions were made. It’s unwise
to commit to the remaining workforce that there will be no further layoffs.
Instead say, in effect, “We took the steps we believe we needed to take to put
the company on the right track for the future. We hope we are done with layoffs.
We will continue to evaluate the company’s progress from time to time. The best
thing we can all do is do our best work together.”
Before implementing the layoff plan, it’s helpful to have counsel review the
plan and objectively evaluate the criteria and data supporting the stated
business reason and the potential that the stated business reason or selection
criteria might be viewed as a pretext for selection using unlawful factors.
Pretext often means that the company’s stated reason for decision is “unworthy
of belief” and is an attempted smoke screen to hide the unlawful reasons. In
addition to protected class factors noted above, the preliminary layoff list
should be evaluated to see if any protected class group is being
disproportionally—even if unintentionally—affected. If so, the criteria may need
adjustment.
Finally, the potential for drawing and defending claims such as breach of
employment contract, retaliation for refusing sexual harassment, whistleblower
activity, Workers Comp claims, asserting a legal right and asserting or
supporting another employee’s legal rights should be considered before the
layoff plan is implemented.
This is a WARNing
The California Worker Adjustment, Retraining and Notification (WARN) Act
generally requires employers of 75 or more employees that will close a work site
or conduct a layoff of 50 or more employees to provide 60-days advance written
notice of job-loss to affected workers and to certain government agencies. The
federal WARN act applies to employers of 100 or more employees. These acts are
riddled with traps for the unwary and penalties.
Employers should rely on their counsel to guide them here.
Severance Agreements
Law does not require severance pay, unless the employer has a mandatory
severance plan or an employment contract that provides severance rights. Often
an employer volunteering to help an employee transition to other employment in
exchange for a general release and waiver of claims against the employer and all
affiliations can both reduce litigation risks and maintain morale of remaining
employees. There are special requirements that must be included in the release
document under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) for the
document to operate as a waiver of age discrimination claims under federal law.
The document should, among other things:
- Refer to the rights under the ADEA.
- Provide some consideration for the waiver of ADEA
rights.
- Advise the employee to consult with an attorney before
signing.
- Give 21 days to consider the agreement prior to signing
(or 45 days if a “group” of employees are let go within 30 days), and seven
days to revoke after signing.
If a group (two or more) is let go, the documents must
have a chart identifying all employees in the decisional unit by job position
and age (not by name) and whether that individual was selected or retained. The
EEOC provides further
guidance online.
Are Layoffs Really Needed?
There are several good alternatives to layoffs, including reduction of pay,
hours and/or benefits, part-time status and temporary work-site closure. Many
workers are relieved to keep a job, and a company can boost employee morale by
permitting everyone to pull together to sustain the company, and retain talented
and trained employees.
A reduction in pay (or hours) is the most legally supportable when the greatest
number of employees are affected equally. If certain divisions of the company,
job categories or individuals are selected for reduction, make those selections
as carefully as with RIFs to avoid discrimination, retaliation and other claims.
Like RIFs, the employer should determine and document the selection criteria and
screen the preliminary list for claims risk. Giving as much advance notice as
possible helps employees prepare for the change and helps the employer
communicate its intention of fairness.
Employers generally have discretion to make pay cuts; however, limitations
include employment agreements (which might include offer letters) and equal pay
laws. Five or 10 percent pay cuts are occurring with more frequency among
employers. Pay cuts must be prospective since wages (including bonuses and
commissions) already earned cannot be taken away and minimum wage requirements
still apply.
Employers have, in general, broad latitude to reduce benefits such as health
insurance and premium payment, 401(k) matching, and paid vacation and sick days.
Of course, all changes must be made prospectively, advance notice should be
given and applicable benefit plan documents, employer policies, employment
agreements and local ordinances need to be considered before making the change.
It’s difficult enough for an employer to feel compelled to institute a RIF or
alternative cuts. But, with the steps outlined above, the affected employees can
hopefully move on to other opportunities and the employer can shore up its
business, sustain jobs for remaining employees and look to a brighter future
with reduced risks of litigation.
Mark E. Terman, Esq.
is partner-in-charge, Employment Law Practices Group at Reish and Reicher, APC.
Reprinted with permission from the California Society of
CPAs, California CPA September, 2010.
|
|