IANAL and this may be minor nit, but I think when the WARN act is applicable, the laid-off employees are still _technically_ employed for 90 days (the pre-notice duration) and any additional severance benefits happen after that.
In other words, when the WARN act applies I don't think it's sufficient to give 90 days of severance. Those employees must remain on the payroll during the notice period.
I think it's common to tell these laid-off employees "you're on the payroll but not expected to report to work during the next 90 days", so it's kinda a distinction without a difference, but it does or at least could have an impact on things like benefits, bonus payouts and vesting.
First off, the ACT is for 60 days not 90. Second, the active quite clear on what happens if you don't provide the notice. In that case, you have to pay the employees in 60 days of severance.
This means that you can give the full notice and no severance whatsoever. Alternatively, you can give no notice but a minimum of 60 days worth of pay.
You're right. I don't know where I got 90 from but the period is 60 days.
Curiously, based on the DOL guide at [1], which to be fair isn't text of the actual law but it is an official government publication meant to explain it, _technically_ it is _not_ acceptable to give 60 days of severance in lieu of notice, but since the penalty for violating the act is a 60 days pay and benefits to all impacted employees, it works out the same either way.
> Can I pay my workers their salary and benefits for 60 days in lieu of notice?
>
> Neither the Act nor the regulations recognize the concept of pay in lieu of notice. WARN requires notice, making no provision for any alternative. Failure to give notice does a significant disservice to workers and under-mines other services that are part of the purpose of the WARN Act. However, since WARN provides that the maximum employer liability for damages, including back pay and benefits, is for the period of violation up to 60 days, providing your employees with full pay and benefits for the 60-day period effectively precludes any relief
In other words, when the WARN act applies I don't think it's sufficient to give 90 days of severance. Those employees must remain on the payroll during the notice period.
I think it's common to tell these laid-off employees "you're on the payroll but not expected to report to work during the next 90 days", so it's kinda a distinction without a difference, but it does or at least could have an impact on things like benefits, bonus payouts and vesting.