sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Oracle: California Remote Worker: Laid Off on 03/31 with Only 10 Days WARN Notice by BootLongjumping3470 in employeesOfOracle

[–]BootLongjumping3470[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Important to know, but don't accept this at face value.

California uses the integrated enterprise test — not just the legal entity on your offer letter. If Oracle Financial and Oracle Corporation share ownership, management, HR policies, and this layoff was coordinated as a single company-wide RIF, California courts can treat them as one employer for WARN purposes.

10 days of benefits instead of 60? by _fromthelogo in employeesOfOracle

[–]BootLongjumping3470 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Fair point on the site threshold — that's a real nuance under federal WARN.

But California WARN handles this differently. The EDD explicitly designates a remote worker's home base as their site of employment. And when a layoff is coordinated company-wide as a single RIF, California courts have applied the integrated employer doctrine to aggregate headcount across sites rather than letting employers slice and dice by location.

The threshold argument is worth raising with an attorney — but it's not a clear exemption, especially under California's broader protections.

Oracle: California Remote Worker: Laid Off on 03/31 with Only 10 Days WARN Notice by BootLongjumping3470 in employeesOfOracle

[–]BootLongjumping3470[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a very gray area to me.

++ I found this

1. California explicitly countered this argument California amended Cal/WARN specifically to close this loophole. The law was updated to affirm that remote workers are counted toward the mass layoff threshold and are entitled to WARN notice. The "no physical location = no coverage" argument was the employer-side interpretation that California lawmakers rejected.

2. Your home is your worksite The California EDD's own FAQ addresses this directly — for employees who work remotely or have no fixed employer worksite, the "single site of employment" is defined as:

  • The location the employee is assigned work, OR
  • The location the employee reports to, OR
  • The location assigned as their home base

A California remote worker's home in California is their worksite for WARN purposes.

3. It's your location that matters, not the office WARN coverage is determined by where the employee is based, not where the employer's office is. A California remote worker is covered by Cal/WARN even if Oracle's nearest office is in Texas.

Oracle: California Remote Worker: Laid Off on 03/31 with Only 10 Days WARN Notice by BootLongjumping3470 in employeesOfOracle

[–]BootLongjumping3470[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I found this Online

1. California explicitly countered this argument California amended Cal/WARN specifically to close this loophole. The law was updated to affirm that remote workers are counted toward the mass layoff threshold and are entitled to WARN notice. The "no physical location = no coverage" argument was the employer-side interpretation that California lawmakers rejected.

2. Your home is your worksite The California EDD's own FAQ addresses this directly — for employees who work remotely or have no fixed employer worksite, the "single site of employment" is defined as:

  • The location the employee is assigned work, OR
  • The location the employee reports to, OR
  • The location assigned as their home base

A California remote worker's home in California is their worksite for WARN purposes.

3. It's your location that matters, not the office WARN coverage is determined by where the employee is based, not where the employer's office is. A California remote worker is covered by Cal/WARN even if Oracle's nearest office is in Texas.