Class-Action Lawsuit Against Paramount Global and CBS Interactive

News Summary

A class-action lawsuit has been filed against Paramount Global and CBS Interactive by about 350 former employees in New York City. The lawsuit follows a mass layoff notification that alleged violations of the New York WARN Act, claiming the employees did not receive the required ninety days’ notice before their layoffs. The outcome of this case could establish significant precedents regarding employer obligations during mass layoffs, especially concerning remote workers.

New York City Sees Class-Action Lawsuit Filed Against Paramount Global and CBS Interactive

On October 3, 2024, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Paramount Global and CBS Interactive by approximately 350 former employees, following a mass layoff notification that took place on September 24, 2024. The plaintiffs allege violations of New York’s Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, claiming they did not receive the required ninety days’ notice prior to their layoffs.

The affected employees, who were primarily based in New York City, were informed that their last day of work would be September 30, 2024. The separation agreement stipulated that these workers would continue to receive pay and benefits until November 25, 2024, regardless of whether they signed the agreement. However, a subset of the laid-off employees would extend their benefits until December 23, 2024, based on differing terms in their separation agreements.

Legal Allegations and Employer Response

In their lawsuit, the former employees argue that the layoffs constituted a mass layoff under the New York WARN Act. This law defines a mass layoff as affecting at least 250 full-time employees at a single worksite or at least twenty-five full-time employees constituting at least 33% of the full-time workforce. The WARN Act mandates employers to provide a ninety-day notice if a mass layoff occurs. Failure to comply results in the requirement to pay affected employees sixty days’ worth of wages and benefits.

One notable detail involves a plaintiff who lived in Orange County, California, yet worked remotely and reported to the New York City headquarters. The employers contended that this remote worker did not qualify as an “affected employee” under the New York WARN Act. As the case progresses, the ultimate decision will hinge on how the court interprets the inclusion of remote workers under the state’s labor laws.

Employers’ Legal Position

Paramount Global and CBS Interactive have argued that both New York and federal WARN laws do not require employers to provide active employment during the notice period. They assert that the laid-off workers received full pay and benefits for ninety days following the notice, irrespective of signing the separation agreements.

On January 31, 2025, the plaintiffs submitted a memo opposing the employers’ motion to dismiss the class action, indicating that they are prepared to vigorously defend their claims. The court’s ruling on this motion will affect whether the case proceeds to trial.

Broader Implications for Employers

The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for how multistate employers manage layoffs, especially those that involve remote workers. Currently, at least thirteen states have implemented their versions of the WARN Act, and all states mandate specific compliance requirements for mass layoffs.

Employers planning large-scale layoffs must take care to verify employee locations and meticulously plan the timing and language of layoff notifications to ensure adherence to legal obligations. Legal experts from Ogletree Deakins, a law firm monitoring the case, have cautioned that companies should stay vigilant regarding compliance with these regulations.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the case could serve as a precedent for future employer-employee interactions during mass layoffs, especially concerning remote working arrangements. With uncertainty surrounding the court’s ruling, affected employees and employers alike are awaiting the legal outcome that could reshape industry practices.

Deeper Dive: News & Info About This Topic

HERE Resources

New York Challenges Expanded Wetlands Regulations
Transforming Office Spaces in New York City Post-Pandemic
NYC’s Congestion Pricing Program Strains Local Businesses
New York’s Business Council Battles Proposed Antitrust Act
FTC Sues Uber Over Alleged Sneaky Billing Practices
New York City Faces Economic Threat from Antitrust Act
Instagram Launches AI Initiative to Protect Teen Users
Regal Cinemas Settles Class Action Lawsuit for $2.5 Million
New York’s Climate Ambitions Challenged in Court
Prison Guards Face Plea Deals in Inmate Death Case

Additional Resources

• CNYBJ: Employment of Out-of-State Telecommuters by Manufacturers in New York State
• Ogletree: Federal Lawsuit in New York Raises Questions About Remote Workers’ Rights Under State WARN Laws
• GovTech: NYC Expands Remote Work, Houston Returns to the Office
• The New York Times: Where Are People Working Remotely?
• Bloomberg Tax: New York’s Embattled Tax on Remote Workers Faces Key Court Test