Sign up for the daily CJR newsletter.

When the Washington Post announced mass layoffs, in February, the company offered severance packages to the roughly three hundred and fifty staff members losing their jobs. To receive their severance, these employees would have to sign their packages by April 10; they would then begin receiving the payments after April 30. But after the terms were set, something strange happened. Editors who were overseeing the laid-off employees began contacting several of them, asking them to return—not as full-time staff, but to work under what their union called a “delayed layoff.” Many of these editors had been given little say over who was originally dismissed, but in the weeks since, they have appeared to be driving an effort to bring certain reporters back to the newsroom. According to Kathleen Floyd, a communications lead and internal organizer at the Washington-Baltimore News Guild (WBNG), the bulk of these reach-outs happened in March; a few are still trickling in. Under the updated terms, the employees will resume their duties through July. “Everyone’s just doing the best they can with this really shitty situation,” a Post reporter said. 

As of April 21, Floyd told me, fifteen newsroom employees who had been let go and were members of the Washington Post Newspaper Guild, which is part of the WBNG, have been quietly offered delayed layoffs. According to Floyd, employees who have been offered a delayed layoff have been told that if a job opens up over the summer that aligns with their skills, they will be moved into the new role, though a Post spokesperson said that no promises about future employment had been made. So far, at least three newsroom employees have been rehired, full-time: two in positions similar to their most recent, and one who has been placed in the opinion section. (The Post did not share the total number of staffers who have been rehired or are subject to a delayed layoff.) 

Across industries, rehires are common. Maria O’Brien, an employment benefits law specialist who teaches at the Boston University School of Law, told me that there are no restrictions on rehiring someone for the same job or a different one, other than those established by union-brokered agreements. If an employer decides to undo layoffs in a unionized workplace, unions will often push for employees who had been let go to be rehired for new positions. The Post hasn’t crossed any lines that would breach the Post Guild contract, Floyd said, though the union is “watching what the company does with a very keen eye.”

The Post’s decision to bring people back hasn’t surprised Floyd—managing with such a dramatically reduced staff never struck her as a good idea—but she did not anticipate that the newsroom would extend offers to so many reporters. That is, she expected Post management to have a firmer grasp on what the newsroom needed before gutting it. “We’ve just seen this over and over again,” she said, “where they make a decision and have to deal with the consequences of how they acted.”

An editor at the Post who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to share information about the layoffs said that they believe the delayed layoffs and rehires are happening in part because of the sheer number of people who quit voluntarily following the layoffs, leaving the newsroom with far more open positions than expected. The editor said they wouldn’t be surprised if the number of people being brought back is equivalent, in salary terms, to the number of people who resigned. A spokesperson for the Post confirmed that the newsroom has been hiring for positions that have opened since the departures of staff who left in the wake of the layoffs.

Mid-level editors are pushing to bring back as many laid-off staffers as possible—an effort that has widespread support across the newsroom, the editor said. For the teams that were hit especially hard by the layoffs, the editor noted, the cuts mean “having to reimagine your entire job and the entire job of the section.”

The Post has not announced which reporters it is bringing back. (When reached, the Post pointed to a statement provided to Status, which reported on some of the returns, noting that if reporters are offered full-time positions, they will not have the same roles they held before. “We are listening to customer feedback and addressing it in real time,” the Post said.) Based on what’s visible from Post coverage, the reporters asked to return include Jake Spring, who covered climate; Nitasha Tiku, a technology reporter; Steve Hendrix, an international correspondent-at-large; and Bailey Johnson, a sports reporter. “Didn’t see this coming, but I’m back at the Post to cover the final stretch of the Caps’ season. It’s been a really weird couple of months, but I’m grateful to have the work and be back doing what I love for the time being,” Johnson posted on X on March 31. Gerry Shih, who was the Jerusalem bureau chief, was also recently rehired full-time. 

Those brought back under a delayed layoff who are not offered full-time positions will receive severance payouts starting in September, a lag required under the terms of the Post’s guild  contract. For those who have not been brought back under a delayed layoff, rehiring remains a possibility, but with caveats. Employees are placed on a rehiring list for a year following their layoff and “shall be hired, according to seniority, for the same or comparable jobs” as and when they are available, per the Post Guild contract.

In February, Matt Murray, the executive editor of the Post, told staff that every department in the newsroom would be affected by the cuts. The layoffs also had a significant impact on the Post’s diversity, in terms of both staff and coverage. And Post leadership has been dogged by questions concerning the rationale behind the cuts. 

But the Post’s delayed-layoff protocol is unusual. Matt Ruggles, an employment and wage attorney at Ruggles Law Firm, said the chaotic nature of the layoffs, followed by delayed layoffs and possible rehires, doesn’t reflect well on the company’s strategy. “You don’t run a business like that, where you lay off three hundred and fifty people, and then you bring them back a month later,” he said. “If I was working there, I’d probably look for another job, because it sounds super unstable.” 

Editor’s Note: This piece has been updated to reflect additional comment from the Post.

Has America ever needed a media defender more than now? Help us by joining CJR today.