Reducing Staff in a Down Economy: Handling Terminations and Using Separation Agreements

Staff reductions and terminations have been an unfortunate result of the current economic downturn. So far this year, U.S. employers, seeking to cut costs, have eliminated more than a quarter million jobs. In addition to employees laid off due to economic considerations, underperforming employees and those that violate Company policies are less likely to be retained in tough financial times when the Company’s bottom-line is under scrutiny by corporate officers, boards of directors, and shareholders. However, employers must keep in mind that terminations cause more lawsuits than any other employment action, and anticipated cost savings can be negated by legal defense costs.

Despite the general rule that the employment relationship is “at-will” and can be terminated at any time, with or without notice, reason or cause, there are many exceptions to the at-will rule, making each termination open to potential legal challenge. Moreover, when the job market is difficult and terminated employees have a hard time finding work, they are more likely to pursue litigation against their former employer. In our practice, we are witnessing first-hand both the increase in terminations and the corresponding increase in lawsuits by terminated employees. This edition of the Employment Law Advisor focuses on handling terminations, using separation agreements, and the steps employers can take to reduce the risk of legal claims and liability in this challenging economic environment.
Terminations: The Legal Landscape

There are three categories of restrictions on employers’ ability to discharge employees: statutory, contractual and common law. Each restriction is a source of potential liability for employers. Statutory restrictions are those imposed by federal, state and local laws, such as laws prohibiting employment discrimination and retaliation. For example, it is unlawful under federal law to make a termination decision based upon an employee’s age, race, national origin, sex, religion or disability. In addition, Massachusetts also prohibits termination decisions based upon sexual orientation, ancestry, genetics or military service. Unlawful retaliation includes discharging an employee because the employee (i) participated in an activity protected by an employment statute (e.g., filing a complaint, testifying, assisting or participating in an investigation, proceeding or hearing) or (ii) opposed an employment practice prohibited by the statute (e.g., objecting to discriminatory hiring practices).

Contractual restrictions are those agreed to (or self-imposed) by the employer, including restrictions contained in employment agreements (e.g., employment for a one-year term). Contractual restrictions may also arise from statements made in offer letters or through other written or oral promises of continued employment for a specified period of time or unless discharged for “cause.” In some instances, an employee handbook or particular personnel policies may create explicit or implicit restrictions on the employer’s right to discharge employees “at-will.”

Common law restrictions are those created by the courts to protect employees from some types of employer conduct not prohibited by statutes. Such restrictions include prohibitions on discharges that violate “public policy,” such as firing an employee for refusing to engage in unlawful behavior on behalf of the employer. Massachusetts courts also hold that there exists in every at-will employment relationship a “covenant of good faith and fair dealing” that is violated when an employer discharges an employee in bad faith in order to avoid payment to the employee of earned compensation. There are also other common law claims that can arise from the manner in which a discharge is handled, including claims of defamation, false imprisonment and intentional or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Steps Employers Can Take to Reduce the Risk of Claims and, Liability Due to Terminations

Employers should recognize that an employee termination may some day be judged by a third party (e.g., a jury) who may base its decision on the perceived “fairness” of the employer’s actions. Although legal challenges are sometimes unavoidable, there are steps employers can take to reduce their risks and to ensure that the termination process itself does not lead to additional employee claims.

1. Determine/clarify the precise reason(s) why the employee is being discharged. When a termination decision is challenged as discriminatory or retaliatory the claim usually turns on the employee’s ability to show that the reason given by the employer is untrue. When an employer says one thing at the time of termination (sometimes to spare the employee’s feelings) and something else later to the court or investigating agency, the employer’s ability to defend the case may be severely impaired.

2. If discharging for misconduct, be certain that there was a thorough and objective investigation of the employee’s conduct. Was the employee given an opportunity to explain his or her side of the story? Have any admissions by the employee been documented? If discharging for poor performance, determine whether the performance problem is well-documented and demonstrable.

3. Avoid surprise. Determine whether the employee was given prior notice that his or her misconduct or continuing poor performance would result in discharge. While not legally required, notice generally is expected by courts and investigating agencies, and the failure to provide notice is viewed with great suspicion (except in those situations involving egregious employee misconduct).

4. Consider the appearance of unfairness, given the potential that the employer’s actions will be judged by a third party. Is discharge clearly warranted for the employee’s misconduct or poor performance? Are there any mitigating circumstances? How have other employees been treated in similar situations? These considerations are of particular importance when a potential discrimination or retaliation claim exists.

5. Review the employee’s personnel records and any documentation relating to the discharge: (i) to get an accurate picture of his or her work record; (ii) to make certain the documentation is complete; and (iii) to remove any materials that do not belong in the file.

6. Review any employment agreements, offer letters, and pertinent personnel policies to determine whether the employer has complied with all requirements, including any notice prerequisites.

7. Assess whether there is any particular vulnerability to legal challenge. Is the employee a member of a protected group (e.g., age 40 or older)? Has he or she exercised a legally protected right recently (e.g., taken Family and Medical Act leave, requested reasonable accommodation of a disability, filed a complaint of discrimination or harassment)? Are there any contractual restrictions to discharge? Are any public policy issues involved (e.g., the employee objected to doing something because of legal or ethical concerns)? Will the employer arguably be in any way unjustly enriched by the discharge (e.g., the employee loses a bonus or commission due to the timing of the discharge)?

8. Plan the termination meeting carefully, taking into consideration the dynamics of the situation. Who will be present? (More than one employer representative should attend.) Where and when will it be conducted? Be discreet. Avoid a “termination march” past co-workers. Avoid causing unnecessary embarrassment or emotional distress to the employee.

9. Be truthful and accurate in telling the employee the reason(s) for the discharge, in a direct but respectful manner. Present the decision as definite and final (assuming it is). Offer support, but not in terms of reversing the discharge decision. Be knowledgeable and prepared to discuss the employee’s termination benefits, including any severance pay, any accrued vacation pay, group insurance continuation, the form of reference the employee will receive, and the employer’s position on unemployment benefits. Also be prepared to discuss any transition matters and any continuing employee obligations (e.g., non-disclosure and/or non-competition restrictions). Prepare a memorandum documenting what was said in the meeting.

10. Provide the employee with a final paycheck. The Massachusetts Payment of Wages Act, M.G.L. c.149, §148, requires that discharged employees be paid their full and final wages on the date of discharge, and the Act provides substantial remedies to employees for violations. Final wages include pay for all accrued and unused vacation time as well as commissions or potentially bonuses earned but not yet paid. Employers should not make any irregular deductions (e.g., for equipment not returned, property damage or outstanding loans) without careful consideration of the potential legal ramifications.

11. Provide notice of the employee’s (and other beneficiaries’) rights regarding health insurance continuation under federal law (COBRA) or state law.

12. Massachusetts law requires that employers provide terminated employees with a notice from the Division of Unemployment Assistance (“DUA”) concerning how to file for unemployment benefits. Download: DUA’s notification pamphlet.

13. Take all appropriate security measures to protect co-workers (if there are safety concerns) and to protect the employer’s business interests (e.g., obtain employee’s laptop, cell phone, keys, pass cards, employer credit cards, terminate access to computer system, prevent the removal of confidential documents and materials).

14. Take appropriate steps to keep confidential matters surrounding the discharge (including any investigation leading up to it). Generally, when the discharge is for misconduct, a strict “need-to-know” rule should be followed to reduce the risk of a defamation claim.

15. As discussed below, in appropriate circumstances, consider presenting the employee with the option of receiving additional termination benefits in exchange for a legal release of all claims the employee may have against the employer.

Our experience in defending hundreds of claims by discharged employees tells us that what is said at the time of termination, and how the termination process is handled by the employer, often determines whether an employee will subsequently file a legal claim. When an employee does file a claim, an employer’s contradictory statements, insensitive conduct or other missteps at the time of termination almost always adversely impact the employer’s defense of the claim and increase its exposure to damages. We believe that taking the steps outlined above will help employers manage employee terminations more effectively and avoid the mistakes that so often lead to employee claims.
Using Separation Agreements to End the Employment Relationship

For many employers, an employee termination triggers an almost knee jerk reaction: offer the employee severance pay and a separation agreement with a release of claims to avoid a potential employee lawsuit. Although there are advantages to the use of separation agreements to prevent prospective legal headaches, such agreements may not be appropriate in all instances. Moreover, a form of separation agreement is often used with little thought regarding whether it is suitable under the circumstances or has been updated. In light of recent legal trends, that form could be found unenforceable by a court, which could result in the former employee getting to keep the severance pay but also having the right to sue the company for employment claims.
Is a Separation Agreement Appropriate?

Whether to offer a terminated employee a severance package in return for a release of claims depends on a number of employer specific factors, such as employer policy, practice and employee relations philosophy. Generally, providing severance in exchange for a release can be a worthwhile investment, as the amount of severance is often insignificant when compared to the cost of defending an employee claim. Severance agreements are particularly useful when the termination is a difficult one or the separated employee is viewed as the type of person likely to assert a claim. Severance agreements are also effective tools to prevent litigation in the context of layoffs, where there are risks of multiple claims.

However, there are sometimes factors that militate against offering severance. For example, out of fear of litigation many employers offer severance to nearly all employees, regardless of the reason for termination, needlessly driving up the overall costs of employee terminations. Offering severance to an employee fired “for cause” may send the wrong message to other employees, i.e., that they will get severance no matter what the infraction.

Further, offering an employee a severance agreement, which by necessity will contain at least some “legalese,” may unintentionally generate claims. When provided with an imposing legal document, a terminated employee may feel compelled to consult an attorney (indeed, the severance agreement may advise the employee to do so). Especially if the severance offered is relatively modest, the offer may do no more than cause the employee to consult counsel and consider asserting claims when he or she might otherwise not have done so.
Special Issues Relating the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act

Employers should ensure that any release of age claims under the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”) complies with the Older Workers’ Benefit Protection Act (“OWBPA”). A compliant agreement must include the following provisions (among others): (i) a 21 day consideration period; (ii) a 7 day revocation period; and (iii) advice to consult with an attorney prior to executing the agreement. Omitting these and other provisions will mean that the release will not waive age claims under federal law. Moreover, employers should be aware that in situations involving the termination of two or more employees special rules apply to release federal age claims, including additional time for consideration (45 days) and detailed informational disclosures.
Special Issues Relating to Reductions In Force

Reductions in force (“RIFs”), which often involve the termination of substantial numbers of employees, must be planned carefully given the potential cost of defending potential claims from large numbers of employees or a class-action lawsuit. Moreover, employers conducting RIFs must consider the potential impact of laws concerning plant closings, such as the federal Workers Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”) and Massachusetts plant closing law.

Generally, WARN requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 days’ notice prior to a plant closing or before laying off/terminating 50 or more employees. Compliance with WARN can be technical and missteps may subject an employer to substantial penalties, so counsel should be consulted well in advance of any planned RIF. Massachusetts also has a plant closing law that applies to any employer closing a facility that had 50 or more employees during the previous six-month period. Under state law, a “plant closing” is defined as a permanent cessation or reduction of business at a facility that results in the permanent separation of at least 90% of the employees within a 6 month period. Among other things, the law requires reporting to state agencies. If both WARN and Massachusetts law are triggered by the RIF, the employer must comply with both.

Additionally, if a reduction in force is challenged in court, the employer will want to have its selection and decision-making process well-documented so that it can show that layoff decisions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory considerations. Employers should also consult with counsel to discuss conducting an analysis of the impact of the RIF on protected categories (i.e., age, race, sex, etc.) prior to implementing the layoff.
Conclusion

Handling terminations carefully is always important, but is even more so in an economic downturn due to the increased risk of former employees bringing legal claims. Each situation should be reviewed carefully to ensure that the risk of claims and the potential exposure to liability is minimized. Steps may need to be taken before the termination or layoff is implemented.

Whether it makes sense to offer a terminated employee a severance package in return for a release of claims depends on a number of employer specific factors, such as employer policy, practice and employee relations philosophy. Providing severance in exchange for a release can be a worthwhile investment, as the amount of severance is often insignificant compared to the cost of defending an employee claim. Severance agreements also can be effective tools to prevent litigation in the context of layoffs, where there are risks of multiple claims. Employers should revisit their separation agreements to ensure the agreements will be enforced. Employers should also make sure they are in compliance with the special requirements relating to reductions in force and plant closings.

Reducing Layoffs as Economic Stimulus

President-Elect Obama has proposed that $10 billion of his economic stimulus package be dedicated to expanding and extending Unemployment Insurance to help people who have lost their jobs. Given the fact that the unemployment rate increased from 4.9% to 7.2% last year, this appears to be a good idea. However, I have a suggestion for him - redirect some of those funds to encourage companies not to layoff their employees in the first place! As we all know, companies are laying off employees in alarming numbers to cope with the recession. Aside from the terrible impact layoffs have on those directly affected, they also have insiduous effects on the company and society as a whole:

1) Low morale and reduced productivity - The employees that survive layoffs are typically traumatized by the experience and are constantly watching over their shoulders to make sure they don't go next. A culture of worry permeates the environment and workers spend significant amounts of time discussing the layoffs, what happened to their colleagues who were let go and what the future holds. Consequently, although everyone keeps up the appearance of being busy, productivity takes a big hit. Given the fact that we have a knowledge economy, the impact of the reduced productivity of employees cannot be overstated.

2) Increase in consumer fear - Every time another corporate layoff and the increasing unemployment rate becomes public news, consumers become even more afraid that their company may be next even if their company has announced no such plans. This fear contracts consumer spending even further thereby making the economic crisis worse, thereby increasing the number of companies that feel pressured to layoff employees.

This vicious cycle will continue to perpertuate itself unless companies are given an incentive not to layoff their employees. A few ideas include:

a) Tax breaks for companies who don't take part in layoffs

b) Tax incentives for companies to utilize Flexible Working Arrangements to reduce payroll costs

c) Tax breaks for employees who agree to a reduction in their salaries and benefits
Do you have any other ideas as to how to reduce the layoffs epidemic? Do you know any company being creative about managing payroll costs? I would love to hear from you.

Employers can reduce labor costs without layoffs

n this economic climate, many companies are laying off employees to cut costs and stay open. However, there is an alternative to layoff in the form of a mandatory furlough. A furlough occurs when a company either shuts down for a specific number of days, say one week per month, or reduces its employees' workdays, say from five to four. In either situation, the employees' time off is without pay. This is a viable method for an employer to reduce costs without losing its already trained employees; however, it may affect an employee's exempt status and, consequently, his or her overtime exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Under the FLSA, exempt employees must be paid the same minimum salary for each week that they perform any work. If the pay cut created by a furlough takes an exempt employee's salary below the minimum required by the FLSA, the employee's exempt status is threatened. The FLSA also prohibits an employer from deducting money from an exempt employee's paycheck during a current pay period based on a reduction in work time. Further, under California law, reducing an exempt employee's schedule in combination with a salary deduction will defeat the overtime exemption.

To maintain an employee's exempt status and implement a furlough, the employer may, of course, simply reduce the employee's salary without reducing the hours worked. Another option is to implement the furlough on the basis of a full week that coordinates with the workweek. Under this system, the employee's exempt status would not be jeopardized because the employee is not entitled to a salary for any week in which he or she performs no work.

If a mandatory furlough is in the offing, the employer must make sure that all affected employees are given advance written notice. We recommend that the notice set forth the changed hours of work as well as the obligations of the employee during the furlough. This would include, for example, whether the use of accrued PTO or vacation time is elective or mandatory and, in the case of exempt employees, notice that absolutely no work may be performed on behalf of the employer during the furlough even insignificant work in the form of e-mail, telephone or other methods of communication.

How to reduce Startup expenses…But NO layoffs please

We’ve earlier reported startups/companies layoff news here and here but as such layoffs have become so frequent now that it’s no more a news but just an obvious reaction to the troubled economy.

As of now, more than 20,000 employees working at tech star

tups/companies have lost their job and this figure may exceed one’s wildest expectations in the coming months.

Seeing the current situation, we decided to put forward a bunch of tips for startup guys & entrepreneurs to avoid “painful layoffs” and still survive this crunch period…

Have a look at this eleven tips !

1. Re-direct surplus/additional human resource

Although startups do not, in general keep surplus staff (for the sake of handling unplanned & overwhelming business opportunities),but if there’s anybody doing nothing relevant to your startup then better give him a break.

Mind you, layoffs are painful only to those who were working hard but still became a victim of situation but those who were good for nothing(such folks themselves know that better) won’t take it as a big blow. You may re-direct those guys to some neighboring startup requiring few part-time folks. Hence this makes such a layoff a bit ‘painless’. The rest 9 tips do not involve layoffs at all.

2. Follow Barter economy

Trade your services rather than just selling them. You may be good at technology but spending big bucks on editorial side at your startup and there may be a startup who’ve some under-utilized editors but have lack of tech support. Hence, trading/exchanging services can help you out in saving from critical expenses. You may try Craigslist for finding such service-trading partners.

3. If possible, have a fund-raise but assuming ‘it’ to be the ‘last chance’

If VCs/Angels are still hopeful enough to help you have a fund-raise, go for it. It better to ‘Survive’ with less authority than to ‘Get exhausted’ with more authority(such authority of no use then !). But assume that no more funds will come your way if you don’t show optimistic response to your investors this time.Remember, a dollar saved is a dollar earned.

4. Turn “full time employees” into ‘Work at home’ or ‘Contract based’

To save out your office space and cutting running costs,this method can prove one of the best ways to avoid layoff. Folks remain connected(you can call them back when things go fine) and still you save crucial bucks as they aren’t full time.

5. Cut out Travel & Marketing expenses

We are talking about survival at this time…not about viral promotion of your service.So, marketing/touring expenses can take a backseat in such a situation

6. Reduce your own salary

Top guys(CEO,CTO,who’re usually the co-founders of a startup) are the ones who are least probable to ditch their own startup in crunch situation.Also, their salary is supposed to be highest as well.A 15-20% reduction in their salary can help saving one or two layoffs.

7.Don’t cut out on folk’s salaries

Offer them work higher than usual(say 2-3 hrs more) for the same salary/perks. As time is money so you get to save time(or money) this way. They would like to work a bit longer rather than going down on their current expenses/lifestyle.

8. Monetize more…

If your startup’s business model is largely based on advertising revenues and that means,you have been maintaining a trade-off between money-visitors then try to monetize higher than usual.

Even a re-organisation of your ad placement may save you a folk’s salary(if you’re bringing respectable viewership).Mind you, ‘one folk saved’ is ‘one folk added’.

9. Evaluate options for unavoidable expenses

You may realise that shifting from ‘fixed cost servers’ to ‘Cloud computing based servers’(such as Amazon EC2) may save you one-third a folk’s salary.Look at VOIP.Its quality has increased significantly and it’s cost-effective as well.Similar options on other unavoidable expenses may save you few hundred dollars every month.

10. Fire your PR folks….they just can’t help you out at this moment

They may be good when you’ve plenty to spend but right now, they are just not required. So, get rid of them if you haven’t already done it.

11. Rent out your office space to some other startup or work on Shared basis

Renting additional office space or sharing office infrastructure can serve as a good idea to save up some money

Job cuts hit 6-month low in April, Illinois mass layoffs also decline

Job-cut announcements by U.S. employers dropped for the third consecutive month in April, falling to the lowest level in six months, according to Chicago outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas. But the cuts were 47 percent above April 2008.

Layoff tallies also declined in reports submitted to Illinois state government. In April, 12 companies advised the state of plans to eliminate an aggregate 1,532 jobs.

That compares with 22 companies in March that filed notices to cut 2,486 jobs. In April 2008, 12 companies planned to slice 2,849 jobs, according to the Illinois layoff notices. The 60-day advance notices are required of most employers with 75 or more workers.

Job cuts remain at recession levels, but their decline could signal that employers are more confident about business conditions, said John Challenger, chief executive officer of the outplacement firm. "It does look as though we may be past the worst of it," Challenger said.

Glass half empty? Labor Department: Layoffs slow to 539K in April

The pace of layoffs slowed in April when employers cut 539,000 jobs, the fewest in six months. But the unemployment rate climbed to 8.9 percent, the highest since late 1983, as many businesses remain wary of hiring given all the economic uncertainties.

The Labor Department tally released Friday wasn't nearly as deep as the 620,000 job cuts that economists were expecting, and was helped by a burst of government hiring. The rise in the unemployment rate from 8.5 percent in March matched economists' forecasts.

The new report underscored the toll the longest recession since World War II has taken on America's workers and companies. However, the slowdown in layoffs may bolster hopes that the worst of the downturn's hefty job losses are past.

Still, companies will remain cautious in hiring, making it harder for laid-off workers to find new jobs.

If laid-off workers who have given up looking for new jobs or have settled for part-time work are included, the unemployment rate would have been 15.8 percent in April, the highest on records dating back to 1994. The total number of unemployed now stands at 13.7 million, up from 13.2 million in March.

Companies also kept a tight rein on workers hours. The average work week in April stayed at 33.2 hours, matching the record low set in March.

Since the recession began in December 2007, the economy has lost a net total of 5.7 million jobs.

As the recession eats into sales and profits, companies have turned to layoffs and other cost-cutting measures to survive the storm. Those including holding down workers' hours, and freezing or cutting pay.

Job losses in February and March turned out to be deeper, according to revised figures. Employers cut 681,000 positions in February, 30,000 more than previously reported. They cut 699,000 jobs in March, more than the 663,000 first reported.

The deepest job cuts of the recession — 741,000 came in January. That was the most since the fall of 1949.

Employers last month cut the fewest jobs since 380,000 in October. Nonetheless, the April job losses were widespread.

Construction companies axed 110,000 jobs, down from 135,000 in March. Factories got rid of 149,000 jobs, down form 167,000 the month before. Retailers cut payrolls by nearly 47,000, less than the nearly 64,000 cut in March. And job losses in financial activities dropped by 40,000, down from 43,000 in the previous month.

The slower pace of job losses — along with 72,000 more government jobs — helped to temper the overall payroll reductions in April.

March Mayhem Tally Tops 3,500 After End-of-Month Law Firm Layoffs

Although major law firm layoffs have seemingly slowed down from the blistering pace set during the first 10 days of March, the end-of-month total is still a stunning figure.

Some 3,500 attorneys and staff, and perhaps significantly more, have lost their jobs, and announcements of canceled summer programs, postponed first-year associate start dates and even pay cuts at all levels up to and including partners have lost their initial power to shock. The 3,500 figure for March compares to considerably lower tallies of roughly 2,000 law firm jobs eliminated in February, and 1,500 in January.

After last week's round up, another seven law firms have added well over over 300 layoffs to the total for March: Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson (41 associates and 58 staff); Gibson Dunn & Crutcher (36 staff); Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell (the firm confirms layoffs of attorneys, counsel and staff, but won't provide totals; Above the Law says about 6 percent of associates are being cut, and the Austin Business Journal reports that same figure); Reed Smith (26 attorneys and 74 staff); Robinson & Cole (11 attorneys and 19 staff); Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom (25 staff layoffs were confirmed, but from what the firm says it appears that a much larger number of staff lawyers and staff may have been laid off); and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan (10 percent of associates).

Because some law firms haven't announced layoffs or haven't provided the number of employees let go, the actual tally of confirmed layoffs for March clearly tops 3,500, although the exact number isn't certain. Lord Locke and Stroock, for example, aren't included in the 3,500 total because they haven't provided layoff numbers, although they have confirmed layoffs, and Skadden apparently may have laid off a much larger group than the 25 staff members confirmed and hence included.

March 2009 Layoff List

Mar. 31: Cardinal Health ( CAH - news - people ) pink-slips 800 workers as part of cost cutting efforts.

Mar. 31: Deere & Co. ( D - news - people ) places 40 Illinois employees on indefinite layoff.

Mar. 30: KLA-Tencor ( KLAC - news - people ) lays off 10% of its workforce which comes to roughly 500 employees.

March 27: Wal-Mart Stores ( WMT - news - people ) closes Ohio facility and lays off 650 workers.

March 26: Agilent Technologies ( A - news - people ) freezes share-buyback program and cuts 2,700 jobs.

March 26: Google ( GOOG - news - people ) institutes second round of layoffs by pink-slipping 200 workers.

March 25: Shaw Industries--a Berkshire Hathaway ( BRK - news - people ) subsidiary--closes two plants, idling 600 workers.

March 25: Constellation Brands ( STZ - news - people ) reduces workforce by 5% (400 workers) following decline in wine sales.

March 25: IBM ( IBM - news - people ) slashes workforce in U.S. by more than 4%, or roughly 5,000 workers.

March 24: Legg Mason ( LM - news - people ) lays off 120 to adjust to its current business needs.

March 24: Synovus Financial ( SNV - news - people ) dismisses 200 employees following a 650-worker layoff in September.

March 24: Cummins ( CMI - news - people ) fires 127 workers when voluntary layoff fails to entice enough to leave.

March 22: Freeport-McMoRan ( FCX - news - people ) pink-slips 50 employees at Denver mine.

March 19: Lam Research ( LRCX - news - people ) pink-slips 375 or 10% of the company’s workforce.

March 17: Caterpillar ( CAT - news - people ) adds another 2,454 layoffs to a growing total, as construction equipment demand continues to be weak.

March 17: A Corning ( GLW - news - people ) subsidiary cuts 200 jobs at North Carolina plant.

March 17: Weyerhaeuser ( WY - news - people ) continues ongoing layoffs and production cuts by closing two lumber mills and firing 307 workers.

March 16: TRW Automotive Holdings ( TRW - news - people ) continues ongoing cuts with 42 salaried employees in Wisconsin and Minnesota.

March 13: Baker Hughes ( BHI - news - people ) pink-slips 1,500 (about 4% of workforce)--this follows a layoff of the same number back in January.

March 13: PPG Industries ( PPG - news - people ) lowers first-quarter expectations and lays off 2,500.

March 13: Sunoco ( SUN - news - people ) fires 750 salaried workers--about a fifth of its workforce.

March 12: Weyerhaeuser ( WY - news - people ) cuts 59 workers at a mill in Oregon.

March 11: AMR ( AMR - news - people ) dismisses 323 flight attendants in response to travel slump.

March 10: Lowe's ( LOW - news - people ) closes lighting and ceiling fan distribution center; fires 82.

March 10: Principal Financial Group ( PFG - news - people ) cuts 60 jobs in its health arm (20 at headquarters).

March 10: Suffering from plummet in building and aerospace sectors, United Technologies ( UTX - news - people ) reduces workforce by 5% (11,600 jobs globally).

March 6: Deere & Co. ( DE - news - people ) fires 325 employees at plants in Iowa on weak construction equipment demand.

March 4: Northrop Grumman ( NOC - news - people ) targets administrative positions in California with 750-worker layoff.

March 4: Heil--a subsidiary of Dover ( DOV - news - people ) that makes waste and recycling trucks--cuts 180 jobs.

March 4: General Dynamics ( GD - news - people ) pink-slips 1,200 as turbulence in the aerospace sector continues.

March 3: U.S. Steel ( X - news - people ) closes two plants in Ontario, affecting 1,500 jobs and sparking frustration in Canadians over "U.S. protectionism."

March 3: FirstEnergy ( FE - news - people ) reduces non-union staff by 4% (335 workers) to reduce costs.

Law Firms Layoff List - April 2009

Here is a smaller list for the month of April. Below are the confirmed layoffs for April. Obviously there are a lot more firms getting rid of staff, but unless I can confirm numbers, only the companies that have published will be displayed. (This is a work in progress post).

Perkins Coie Cuts 12 Associates, 26 Staffers, April 14, 2009
Baker & McKenzie Eliminates 124 Legal and Non-Legal, April 7, 2009
Hogan & Hartson let go 93 Staffers, April 2, 2009
Mayer Brown Cuts 135 Lawyers, Staff Across US, April 2, 2009

Job losses due to world crisis tapering off

MANILA, Philippines—Economic Planning Secretary Ralph Recto has announced that job losses resulting from the global financial crisis were “tapering off.”

In his report at the Cabinet meeting Tuesday morning, he said the business process outsourcing (BPO) sector alone was expected to generate around 500,000 jobs in Mindanao, particularly in South Cotobato, Sultan Kudarat, Sarangai and General Santos City.

“Business process outsourcing is robust and the non-voice services will complement the job generators in the call centers,” Cabinet Secretary Silvestre Bello III quoted Recto as saying in a media briefing.

Bello said the 14,000 workers displaced months ago had been rehired by their respective companies.

He said the second phase of the North Luzon Expressway (NLEx) project for C-5 would also create 100,000 jobs.

So far, he said 75,000 workers had benefited from the government’s Comprehensive Livelihood and Emergency Employment Program.