DOL Issues WARN Act Guidance to Federal Contractors in Light of Sequestration
Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.01.12
On July 30, in the latest twist in the ongoing drama surrounding the sequestration process, the Department of Labor issued guidance regarding federal contractors' responsibilities under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act. The DOL's guidance declares that "in the context of prospective across-the-board budget cuts ...WARN Act notice[s] to employees of Federal contractors, including in the defense industry, is not required 60 days in advance of January 2, 2013, and would be inappropriate, given the lack of certainty about how the budget cuts will be implemented and the possibility that the sequester will be avoided before January." Adding to the growing confusion over mandatory sequestration cuts slated to begin January 2, the DOL's guidance (which does not carry the force and effect of law) states that although sequestration "may" occur, it is "not necessarily foreseeable," in part because agencies "have some discretion in how to implement the required reductions if sequestration were to occur." On that basis, the DOL opines that contractors would be excused from the WARN Act's 60-day notification requirement in the event of sequestration.
The DOL's Guidance does not necessarily mean that the notification issue is dead for employers potentially affected by sequestration. There is the possibility that the DOL's announcement will not carry the day if an employer is challenged under the WARN Act. While the guidance above is consistent with the preamble to the WARN Act regulations -- which state that blanket notice to workers is not appropriate -- the DOL has also previously stated in a Fact Sheet that "since it has no administrative or enforcement responsibility under" the WARN Act, it "cannot provide specific advice or guidance with respect to individual situations." As this issue continues to develop, and as January 2, 2013 draws closer, employers who may be subject to sequestration should continue to assess their potential notice obligations based on the circumstances relating to their federal contracts and subcontracts.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
SCOTUS Holds IEEPA Tariffs Unlawful
On February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court issued a pivotal ruling in Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, negating the President’s ability to impose tariffs under IEEPA. The case stemmed from President Trump’s invocation of IEEPA to levy tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, China, and other countries, citing national emergencies. Challengers argued—and the Court agreed—that IEEPA does not delegate tariff authority to the President. The power to tariff is vested in Congress by the Constitution and cannot be delegated to the President absent express authority from Congress.
Client Alert | 7 min read | 02.20.26
Section 5949 Proposed Rule Puts the FAR Council's Chips on the Table
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.20.26
Trump Administration Pursues MFN Pricing for Prescription Drugs
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.19.26
Proposed NY Legislation May Mean Potential Criminal Charges for Unlicensed Crypto Firms


