The WARN Act and the 60-day notice: what a large layoff requires

Notice, not permission

WARN is easy to misread in two opposite directions. One mistake is treating it as a formality, a form to file on the way out the door. The other is treating it as a ban, as if a large layoff were somehow off limits. Neither is right. An employer can still close a site or cut a division. WARN does not ask why, and at the federal level it does not require severance. What it requires is time. A covered employer has to tell the people about to lose their jobs at least 60 days before it happens. The public officials who will absorb the impact get the same notice.

That single idea drives everything else. Because the obligation is about lead time, the law cares a great deal about counting. How many people, at which site, over what window, and whether a series of smaller cuts adds up to a covered event. Get the count right and the rest is process. Get it wrong, or assume a quiet round of layoffs slides under the line, and the bill arrives. It is back pay for every worker who should have had notice.

1. It requires notice, not a reason. A covered employer must give 60 days of written warning. It does not have to explain the business case, prove the layoff was necessary, or offer anyone a different job.
2. It does not stop the layoff. WARN gives no court the power to block a closing. It sets a notice period and attaches a price to skipping it. The action can still go ahead.
3. It does not require severance, federally. The federal Act says nothing about severance. The only money it puts in play is back pay as a remedy for missing notice. New Jersey is the exception, and it lives in state law.
4. Pay in place of notice is not a substitute. The Act requires 60 calendar days of notice. It makes no provision for paying wages instead. An employer that pays without noticing has still not complied. It has only pre-funded part of its potential liability.

Three thresholds that all have to line up

Federal WARN applies only when three separate questions come back yes. Is the employer big enough, is the event large enough, and does it happen at a single site within a tight window. Miss any one and the federal Act does not attach, though a state law still might. Start with the employer.

100 or more employees

WARN covers employers with 100 or more employees. The count excludes anyone averaging fewer than 20 hours a week, or on the payroll fewer than 6 of the last 12 months. A second path also counts: 100 or more employees, part-timers included, who together work at least 4,000 hours a week, not counting overtime. Regular government entities sit outside the Act.

If the employer clears that bar, the next question is whether the event is a covered one. WARN recognizes two, and they are counted differently. The thread that ties them together is the idea of an employment loss, which is broader than a firing. It means a termination other than for cause, a quit, or a retirement. A layoff that runs longer than 6 months. Or a cut of more than half of an employee’s hours in each month of a 6-month stretch.

Plant closing 50+ losses

The permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site, or of one or more facilities or operating units within it. It must cause an employment loss for 50 or more employees during any 30-day period. Part-time workers are not counted toward the 50.

Mass layoff 50 at 33%, or 500

A reduction in force that is not a plant closing and causes an employment loss at a single site during any 30-day period. The trigger is 50 to 499 employees who make up at least a third of the active workforce. It is also met at 500 or more employees, whatever the percentage.

Two details quietly decide a lot of cases. The first is the single site of employment. WARN counts losses at one location, not across an entire company. A cut spread thin across many offices may never trip the threshold at any one of them. A state like New Jersey now treats the whole state as one establishment. The second is the 30-day window, which is where the next rule comes in.

The 90-day aggregation rule

The obvious way to dodge a notice law is to break one large layoff into several small ones, each below the trigger. WARN closes that door. Say an employer has two or more groups of employment losses within any 90-day period, each falling short of the threshold on its own. The law adds them together and treats them as one covered event. The notice obligation then applies to the whole.

Smaller cuts can still add up

The only way out is proof. An employer that wants the rounds treated separately has to show the losses came from separate and distinct business actions and causes. One decision sliced into pieces does not qualify. Absent that showing, a string of layoffs inside a 90-day window counts as a single mass layoff or closing.

This is why staggered reductions have to be planned against the calendar, not just the headcount. Cut 30 in March and another 30 in May, at the same site and from one restructuring. That usually reads as a single event of 60, with notice owed to everyone.

What a missed notice costs

WARN has no government enforcer. The Department of Labor administers the regulations but does not investigate complaints or sue on a worker’s behalf. Enforcement runs through the federal courts, where affected employees, their representatives, and units of local government can bring suit. The remedies are spelled out, and they are the only ones the Act provides.

Back pay to employees Up to 60 days

An employer that violates the notice rule owes each affected worker back pay and the value of lost benefits for each day of the violation. The cap is 60 days, or one-half the days the person was employed, whichever is smaller. The daily rate is the higher of the worker’s average pay over the last 3 years or final rate.

A penalty to local government $500 a day

An employer that fails to notify the local government unit can owe a civil penalty of up to $500 for each day of the violation. That penalty disappears if the employer pays each affected employee what it owes within 3 weeks of the closing or layoff.

Liability can be trimmed. Wages and benefits the employer pays during the violation period, and voluntary payments it was not otherwise required to make, reduce the back-pay figure. A court may also award the prevailing party reasonable attorney’s fees, which cuts both ways. The practical point holds either way. Giving notice almost always costs less than a class of former employees suing for 60 days of pay.

Mini-WARN laws where the floor stops mattering

Federal WARN is a floor, and in the states that have built on it the floor is often the least of an employer’s worries. These mini-WARN laws tend to reach smaller employers, count employees more broadly, demand a longer notice, or add their own penalties. A reduction that is comfortably under the federal line can be squarely inside a state one. Four states show the range, and New Jersey shows how far it can go.

California 75 employees, 60 days

Cal-WARN covers an establishment that has employed 75 or more people in the past year. It requires 60 days of notice for a mass layoff of 50 or more at a site. The same applies to a termination or a relocation of 100 or more miles. There is no one-third test, so 50 losses can trigger it on their own. SB 617, effective 1 January 2026, expands what the notice itself must say. It must state whether the employer will coordinate transition services with the local workforce development board or another entity. It must carry that board’s contact information and services. Where the employer opts in, coordination is arranged within 30 days of the notice.

Illinois 75 employees, 60 days

Illinois WARN reaches employers with 75 or more full-time employees. Notice runs 60 days. A mass layoff is 250 losses, or 25 that make up at least a third of the site. A closing is 50 losses. The lower headcount pulls in mid-size employers the federal Act misses.

New York 50 employees, 90 days

New York covers private employers with 50 or more full-time employees and requires 90 days of notice, a month longer than federal. The triggers drop too. A closing or mass layoff affecting 25 employees can be enough, and the list of officials who must be told is long.

New Jersey Severance, no release

New Jersey covers employers with 100 or more employees statewide and requires 90 days of notice. It counts a mass layoff at 50 losses across the whole state, with no one-third test. Its standout rule is severance, below.

Washington 50 employees, 60 days

Washington’s mini-WARN took effect 27 July 2025. Employers with 50 or more full-time employees in the state owe 60 days of notice. The trigger is a mass layoff of 50 or more at a single site in 30 days, or a closing with 50 or more losses. Amendments signed 17 March 2026 (ESB 6106) exclude tribal employers from the definition and shield employee names and addresses in filed notices from public-records disclosure.

New Jersey requires severance you cannot condition on a release. The 2023 amendments to New Jersey’s WARN law require one week of pay for each full year of service, for every terminated employee. That payment is automatic, whether or not the 90-day notice was given. The employer cannot make that severance contingent on signing a release of claims. The worker cannot waive it without state or court approval. If the full 90 days of notice is not given, the employee is owed an additional four weeks of pay. This breaks the usual deal, in which severance buys a signed release. Price and paper a New Jersey reduction with that in mind.

These four are not the whole map. Washington added a mini-WARN in 2025, Maine and Maryland have their own versions, and other states are moving. The rules differ on the headcount that triggers them, the length of the notice, who has to be told, and whether any severance is owed. They almost always run in addition to federal WARN rather than instead of it. When a state requires a longer notice than the federal 60 days, the federal period runs concurrently inside it. Meeting the stricter state deadline generally satisfies both. Before you rely on the federal floor, check whether a state law reaches your workforce, including remote employees based at an affected site.

Five ways employers trip the line

• Counting the wrong group.Federal WARN counts losses at a single site and excludes part-time workers from the trigger. Several states count differently, and New Jersey counts the entire state as one establishment. Using the federal method where a state law applies is the most common way an employer concludes, wrongly, that it is under the line.
• Slicing one layoff into pieces.Two or more rounds inside a 90-day period add together unless the employer can show separate and distinct causes. A restructuring carried out in waves is still one event, and notice is owed to everyone in it.
• Paying 60 days instead of giving notice.Federal WARN has no pay-in-place-of-notice option. Writing checks for 60 days does not satisfy the notice requirement. It only reduces the back pay a court might award. The notice itself, in writing, to every required party, is the obligation.
• Tying New Jersey severance to a release.The statutory severance in New Jersey is automatic and cannot be conditioned on a signed release. An employer that withholds it until the worker signs is violating the law. So is one that folds it into a release agreement as if it were ordinary severance. Either may still owe a separate payment to settle other claims.
• Leaning on an exception too soon.The faltering company, unforeseeable circumstances, and natural disaster exceptions reduce the notice period. They do not remove it. The employer still has to give as much notice as it can and explain in writing why it fell short. It carries the burden of proving the exception applies.

Six red flags to check before you fire someone

Free, and written to the same standard

A five minute screen to run before you act, sent to your inbox as a print-ready PDF. Every figure in it traces to a reference note like this one.