The WARN Acts: Federal and State

From the Melmed Law Group Editorial Team
Current as of December, 2024

The California and federal WARN Acts require certain covered employers to provide employees with at least 60 days’ notice before a plant closing or a mass layoff. The notice needs to be specific and comply with certain statutory rules. A covered employer that fails to provide proper notice of a plant closing, a mass layoff, or—in California—a relocation, faces significant consequences. Affected employees may be entitled to recover various categories of damages through a civil action.

I. Introduction

Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Acts are laws that require employers to provide advance notice—or warn—their employees about upcoming work reductions or plant closures. Various WARN Acts are in effect today—the federal WARN Act and numerous state-specific WARN Acts. The primary purpose of the WARN Acts is to provide employees and their families time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek alternative jobs, and/or to participate in training programs.

In 1988, Congress enacted the federal WARN Act to protect workers—and their communities—from a loss of income from a plant closing, major layoff, or large-scale reduction in work hours. The federal WARN Act covers workers in every state. Some states, like California, also have their own version of the WARN Act, which supplements the federal WARN Act. For example, in 2003, California passed its own version of the WARN Act.[1] While the California WARN Act tends to be slightly more favorable to workers than the federal WARN Act, the two WARN Acts share similar intent and have many similar overlapping requirements (with various nuanced similarities and differences highlighted throughout this article). Ultimately, both the California and federal WARN Acts require employers to provide their affected employees and local governments with sufficient notice of certain terminations, layoffs, or reductions in hours.

The WARN Acts don’t apply to every employer. This article uses the term “covered employer” to refer to an employer covered by either the California or the federal WARN Act. When a covered employer fails to comply with the WARN Acts’ notice requirements, an affected employee may be entitled to various forms of financial damages and can recover those damages through a civil action.

This article examines the four key steps of the WARN Acts in sequential order.

  • Step 1: Which employers are subject to the WARN Acts (in other words, who is a covered employer)?
  • Step 2: What events trigger the WARN Acts’ notice requirements for a covered employer?
  • Step 3: What are the WARN Acts’ specific notice requirements (i.e., how does a covered employer comply with the WARN Acts)?
  • Step 4: What are the consequences if a covered employer does not comply with the WARN Acts?

Both the federal and California WARN Acts apply to terminations, layoffs, and reductions plus—in California only—relocations. These are the words this article uses, but a lot of other words can mean the same thing, such as:

  • Cutbacks
  • Corporate Restructuring
  • Downsizing
  • Eliminating Positions
  • Furlough
  • Reduction in Force or RIF
  • Manpower Reduction
  • Retrenchment
  • Rightsizing
  • Shutdown
  • Staff Reduction
  • Consolidation

If an employer uses any of these words or other similar words to describe job losses, layoffs, reductions in hours, or relocations, the employer may be required to comply with the WARN Acts.

II. Which Employers Are Subject to the WARN Acts?

The WARN Acts do not apply to every employer. The key determining factor is the employer’s size—in terms of the number of employees. This article refers to an employer subject to the WARN Acts as a “covered employer.” Only a covered employer must comply with the federal and California WARN Acts’ requirements.

A. Which Employers Are Subject to the Federal WARN Act?

According to the federal WARN Act, a covered employer (i.e., an employer covered by the federal WARN ACT) is any business enterprise that employs either (1) 100 or more employees, excluding part-time employees, or (2) 100 or more employees who work in total at least 4,000 hours per week (not including overtime hours).[2] The federal WARN Act defines a part-time employee as “an employee who is employed for an average of fewer than 20 hours per week or who has been employed for fewer than 6 of the 12 months preceding the date on which notice is required.”[3]

B. Which Employers Are Subject to the California WARN Act?

According to the California WARN Act, a covered establishment is “any industrial or commercial facility or part thereof that employs, or has employed within the preceding 12 months, 75 or more persons.”[4] An employer covered by the California WARN Act (i.e., a covered employer) is any person who directly or indirectly owns and operates a covered establishment; a parent corporation is an employer as to any covered establishment directly owned and operated by its corporate subsidiary.[5]

Some California courts have asked: what if an employer employs 75 or more persons at multiple facilities? Does the California WARN Act still apply, or does the WARN Act require 75 or more persons at each single facility? A recent California trial court held that “there is no binding authority on this issue of California law.”[6] However, courts typically find that the 75-person requirement cannot be across multiple facilities—at least 75 employees must be at a single facility in order for the California WARN Act to apply.

AB1356—vetoed by Governor Newsom on October 8, 2023—would have clarified that a covered establishment “may be a single location or a group of locations….”[7] However, because the bill was vetoed, it seems more likely than not that the current state of the law requires that there must be a minimum of 75 persons employed at a single location in order for the employer to be a covered employer under the California WARN Act.

Note that the California WARN Act’s employee threshold is lower (75 employees) than the federal WARN Act’s threshold (100 employees). Also note that the California WARN ACT’s employee-count threshold includes part-time employees, while the federal WARN Act excludes part-time employees. These differences highlight the California WARN Act’s broader applicability, providing stronger worker protections.[8]

Therefore, an employer that is not a covered employer under the federal WARN Act may still be a covered employer under the California WARN Act. Note, however, that although the California WARN Act expands the scope of “covered employers” with the lower threshold of 75 full-time and part-time employees, it still somewhat limits who is considered an employee: an “employee” is a person employed by an employer for at least six months of the 12 months before the date that the notice is required.[9]

III. What Events Trigger the WARN Acts?

The federal WARN Act and the California WARN Act each have their own triggering events. A plant closing and a mass layoff will each trigger the federal WARN Act. A mass layoff, a relocation, and a termination will each trigger the California WARN Act. These terms have very specific meanings that are described and explored below.

A. What Events Trigger the Federal WARN Act?

A plant closing and a mass layoff will each trigger the federal WARN Act. These two terms are defined below.

A plant closing triggers the federal WARN Act. A plant closing means “the permanent or temporary shutdown of a single site of employment, or one or more facilities or operating units within a single site of employment, if the shutdown results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees excluding any part-time employees.”[10]

A mass layoff triggers the federal WARN Act. A mass layoff means a reduction in force that is not the result of a plant closing.[11] To be considered a mass layoff, there must be an employment loss at a single site of employment during a 30-day period of either (1) at least 33% of the employees (excluding part-time employees) and at least 50 employees or (2) 500 employees (excluding part-time employees).[12] In other words:

  • a mass layoff (but no plant shutdown) of 49 or fewer employees (excluding part-time employees) does not trigger the federal WARN Act;
  • a mass layoff (but no plant shutdown) of 50 to 499 employees (excluding part-time employees) triggers the federal WARN Act but only if the number of employees (excluding part-time employees) laid off is 33% or more of the employee workforce (excluding part-time employees);
  • a mass layoff (but no plant shutdown) of 500 or more employees (excluding part-time employees) triggers the federal WARN Act regardless of the percentage of employees laid off.

For purposes of the federal WARN Act, an affected employee is any employee who may reasonably be expected to experience an employment loss as a consequence of a proposed plant closing or mass layoff by their employer.[13] The federal WARN Act defines an employment loss as any of the following: (1) an employment termination (other than a termination for cause, a voluntary departure, or a retirement); (2) a layoff exceeding six months; or (3) a reduction in work hours of more than 50% during each month of any six-month period.[14]

The federal WARN Act specifically prohibits an employer from using multiple, smaller layoffs or terminations at one location to evade the WARN Act. The federal WARN Act explains that in determining whether a plant closing or mass layoff has occurred or will occur, employment losses for two or more groups at a single employment site that are less than the minimum number of employees separately but exceed the minimum number when combined and that occur within a 90-day period are considered a plant closing or mass layoff, unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes, and are not the employer’s attempt to evade the federal WARN Act requirements.[15]

B. What Events Trigger the California WARN Act?

According to the California WARN Act, the following events trigger the California WARN Act: a mass layoff, a relocation, and a termination. These three terms are defined below.

A mass layoff triggers the California WARN Act. A mass layoff “means a layoff during any 30-day period of 50 or more employees at a covered establishment.”[16] For the purposes of this provision only, the term “employee” means “a person employed by an employer for at least 6 of the 12 months preceding the date on which the notice is required.”[17]

An important distinction between federal and California WARN Acts is that the California WARN Act does not set a minimum duration for a mass layoff like the federal WARN Act does. “(T)he California Legislature did not include the federal WARN Act's rule that the notification duty is triggered only when the layoff is for more than six months.”[18] Under the California WARN Act, a mass layoff of any duration is subject to the California WARN Act’s notice requirement.

A relocation triggers the California WARN Act. A relocation “means the removal of all of or substantially all of the industrial or commercial operations in a covered establishment to a different location 100 miles or more away.”[19]

A termination triggers the California WARN Act. A termination “means the cessation or substantial cessation of industrial or commercial operations in a covered establishment.”[20]

IV. If the WARN Act Is Triggered, What Does a Covered Employer Need to Do to Comply?

The federal and California WARN Act notice requirements are similar. Both statutes provide specific notice requirements and exceptions. Under either statute, an employer’s substantial compliance with the notice requirements may be enough to satisfy the law. The key is that the employer provides written notice to the employees regardless of whether the employees may already know about an upcoming termination or closure.

A. If the Federal WARN Act Is Triggered, What Does a Covered Employer Need to Do to Comply?

According to the federal WARN Act, an employer may not order a plant closing or a mass layoff unless the employer provides written notice of the order at least 60 days before the order to: (1) the affected employees (or their representative); (2) the state or entity designated by the state to carry out rapid-response activities; and (3) the chief elected official of the unit of local government where the closing or layoff is to occur (if there is more than one such unit, the unit of local government that the employer must notify is the unit of local government the employer pays the highest taxes to for the prior year.)[21]

At least one federal district court has held that the federal WARN Act’s notice requirement applies even if the employees are already aware of an upcoming plant closure.[22] In other words, employees are entitled to written notice that complies with the federal WARN Act’s requirements even if they know of an impending plant closing or mass layoff.

To comply with the federal WARN Act, an employer may either mail the WARN notice to the employee’s last known address or insert the notice into an employee’s pay envelope.[23] However, a preprinted notice regularly included in each employee’s paycheck or pay envelope does not satisfy the notice requirement.[24]

The notice to the affected employees must include (in a language understandable to the employees): (1) a statement as to whether the planned action is expected to be permanent or temporary and whether the entire plant is to be closed; (2) the expected date the plant closing or mass layoff will begin and the expected date the individual employee will be separated; (3) an indication whether or not bumping rights exist; and (4) the name and telephone number of a company official to contact for further information.[25]

The notice to the local government must include (1) the name and address of the employment site where the plant closing or mass layoff will occur, and the name and telephone number of a company official to contact for further information; (2) a statement as to whether the planned action is expected to be permanent or temporary and, if the entire plant is to be closed, a statement to that effect; (3) the expected date of the first separation and the anticipated schedule for making separations; (4) the job titles of the affected positions and the number of affected employees in each job classification; (5) an indication as to whether or not bumping rights exist; and (6) the name of each union representing affected employees and the name and address of the chief elected officer of each union.[26]

A layoff lasting longer than six months that—at its outset—was announced to be a layoff of six months or less does trigger the WARN Act as an employment loss unless both (1) the extension beyond six months is caused by business circumstances (including unforeseeable changes in price or cost) not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the initial layoff, and (2) notice is given at the time it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the extension beyond six months will be required.[27]

1. Exceptions to the Federal WARN Act

The federal WARN Act provides three main exceptions to the 60-day notice rules. Some of these exceptions come with conditions, described below.

The first exception is that an employer may order the shutdown of a single site of employment before the end of the 60-day period if, “as of the time that notice would have been required the employer was actively seeking capital or business which, if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the shutdown and the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice required would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business.”[28] If an employer relies on this exception, the federal WARN Act mandates the employer to “give as much notice as is practicable” as well as a “brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period.”[29]

The second exception is that “an employer may order a plant closing or mass layoff before the conclusion of the 60-day period if the closing or mass layoff is caused by business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required.”[30] If an employer relies on this exception, the federal WARN Act mandates the employer to “give as much notice as is practicable” as well as a “brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period.”[31]

The third exception is that an employer need not provide the 60-day notice if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to “any form of natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, or the drought currently ravaging the farmlands of the United States.”[32] If an employer relies on this exception, the federal WARN Act mandates the employer to “give as much notice as is practicable” as well as a “brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period.”[33]

The fourth exception is that the federal WARN Act does not apply where a plant closing is of a temporary facility or a plant closing or mass layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking, and the affected employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was limited to the duration of the facility, project, or undertaking.[34]

The fifth exception is that the federal WARN Act does not apply where “the closing or layoff constitutes a strike or constitutes a lockout.”[35] In that case, the federal WARN Act does not require an employer to provide notice when permanently replacing a person deemed to be an economic labor striker.[36] However, the federal WARN Act provides a warning to employers that this exception will not validate or invalidate any judicial or administrative ruling relating to the hiring of permanent replacements for economic strikers under the National Labor Relations Act.[37] Employers should exercise extreme caution when attempting to use this exemption.

2. Special Considerations for the Sale of a Business under the Federal WARN Act

According to the federal WARN Act, if a business is sold, then the seller is responsible for providing WARN notice for any plant closing or mass layoff up to and including the date of the sale.[38] However, after the date of the sale, the purchaser is responsible for providing WARN notice for any plant closing or mass layoff.[39] The federal WARN Act also states that “any person who is an employee of the seller (other than a part-time employee) as of the effective date of the sale shall be considered an employee of the purchaser immediately after the effective date of the sale.”[40]

3. Special Considerations for the Relocation or Consolidation of a Business

The federal WARN Act provides guidance for compliance in the context of the relocation or consolidation of a business. Suppose a business relocates or is consolidated and a mass layoff or plant closing causes an employment loss. In that case, the federal WARN Act states that “an employee may not be considered to have experienced an employment loss if . . . (1) the employer offers to transfer the employee to a different site of employment within a reasonable commuting distance with no more than a 6-month break in employment; or (2) the employer offers to transfer the employee to any other site of employment regardless of distance with no more than a 6-month break in employment, and the employee accepts within 30 days of the offer or of the closing or layoff, whichever is later.”[41]

B. If the California WARN Act Is Triggered, What Does a Covered Employer Need to Do to Comply?

According to the California WARN Act, an employer may not order a mass layoff (described above), a relocation (described above), or a termination (described above), unless the employer provides written notice of the order at least 60 days before the order to: (1) the employees of the covered establishment affected by the order; (2) the Employment Development Department; (3) the local workforce investment board; and (4) the chief elected official of each city and county government within which the termination, relocation, or mass layoff occurs.[42] Unlike the federal WARN Act, which allows employers to notify employee representatives, the California WARN Act requires employers to notify employees directly.[43]

The California WARN Act requires written notices of a covered event to include all elements required by the Federal WARN Act[44] (as described above).

1. Exceptions to the California WARN Act

The California WARN Act provides several exceptions to the 60-day notice rule.

The first exception is that if the mass layoff, relocation, or termination is necessitated by a physical calamity or an act of war, then the employer need not provide 60 days’ notice.[45]

The second exception is commonly known as the “faltering business” exception. It only applies to termination or relocation events and not to mass layoffs.[46] According to this exception, an employer does not need to comply with the notice requirements of the California WARN Act when ordering a termination or relocation if the employer can establish these four elements: (1) as of the time that notice would have been required, the employer was actively seeking capital or business; (2) the capital or business sought, if obtained, would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the relocation or termination; (3) the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the required notice would have precluded the employer from obtaining the needed capital or business; and (4) the employer provides the appropriate agencies with a written record consisting of all documents relevant to determining whether the employer was actively seeking capital or business with an affidavit verifying the contents of the documents contained in the record that includes a declaration signed under penalty of perjury stating that the affidavit and the contents of the documents contained in the record are true and correct.[47]

The third exception is that if a closing or layoff is the result of the completion of a particular project or undertaking of an employer in the broadcast industry, the motion picture industry, or certain occupations in the construction, logging and mining industries, and the employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was limited to the duration of that project or undertaking.[48]

The fourth exception is that the California WARN Act does not apply to employees employed in seasonal employment where the employees were hired with the understanding that their employment was seasonal and temporary.[49]

V. If a Covered Employer Does Not Comply with the WARN Acts, What Happens?

A. If the Covered Employer Does Not Comply with the Federal WARN Act, What Happens?

An employee affected by an employer not complying with the federal WARN Act may bring a civil action in court (i.e., file a lawsuit) on his or her own behalf, as a class action, or both.[50] If the employee wins—or “prevails”—and the court finds that an employer failed to give the employee proper notice (as described above) before ordering a plant closing or a mass layoff, the employer may be liable to the affected employee for:

  • Back pay at the average regular rate of compensation received by the employee during the last three years of their employment or the employee’s final rate of compensation, whichever is higher,[51] for up to 60 days or one-half the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever is lower;[52] and
  • The value of the cost of any benefits the employee would have been entitled to had their employment not been lost, including the cost of any medical expenses incurred by the employee that would have been covered under an employee benefit plan[53] for up to 60 days or one-half the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever is lower;[54] and
  • A civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars for any employer that violates the federal WARN Act “with respect to a unit of local government.”[55] However, the penalty will not apply if the employer pays to each aggrieved employee the amount the employer is liable for within three weeks from the date the employer orders the shutdown or layoff.[56] Further, if an employer proves to a court that their violation of the federal WARN Act was in “good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation” of the federal WARN Act, then the court can, “in its discretion, reduce the amount of the liability or penalty provided for in this section;”[57] and
  • Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.[58] Note that a federal district court may award reasonable attorney’s fees to a prevailing party to a federal WARN Act claim, even if the prevailing party is the employer. This applies only to a federal WARN Act case but not to a California WARN Act case[59] —a crucial difference between the federal and California WARN Acts.

One issue that arises is the method of calculating 60 days’ worth of damages. Can an aggrieved employee (under the federal WARN Act) recover 60 days of back pay, or can they only recover the back pay for the number of days they would have worked over those 60 days? “The . . . issue . . . is whether employees deprived of 60 days’ notice of a plant closing are entitled to get paid for each of the 60 days, or [instead] for what would have been work days during the 60 days.”[60] The Ninth Circuit, which includes the State of California, ruled that the employee was only entitled to damages for the “work days” during the 60-day period.[61] The Fifth, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits all agree with the Ninth Circuit.[62] However, the Third Circuit takes a different approach and includes each calendar day in the 60-day period to calculate the damages.[63] The US Supreme Court has not yet issued an opinion on this circuit split.

It is important to note that a federal district court does not have the authority to prevent a plant closure or a mass layoff.[64] However, a federal district court does have the authority to reduce the employer’s liability if—during the employer’s violation—the employer made any of the following payments to or on behalf of the affected employee(s):

  • Any wages for the period of the employer’s violation;[65]
  • Any voluntary and unconditional payments to the employee that were not required to satisfy any legal obligation;[66] or
  • Any payments to a third party or trustee, such as premiums for health benefits or payments to a defined contribution pension plan, on behalf of and attributable to the employee for the period of the violation.[67]

B. If the Covered Employer Does Not Comply with the California WARN Act, What Happens?

An employee affected by a covered employer not complying with the California WARN Act may bring a civil action in court (i.e., file a lawsuit) on his or her own behalf, as a class action, or both.[68] If the employee wins—or “prevails”—and the court finds that a covered employer failed to give the proper notice (as described above) before ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination, the employer may be liable to the affected employee for:

  • Back pay at the average regular rate of compensation received by the employee during the last three years of their employment or the employee’s final rate of compensation, whichever is higher,[69] for up to 60 days or one-half the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever is lower;[70] and
  • The value of the cost of any benefits the employee would have been entitled to had their employment not been lost, including the cost of any medical expenses incurred by the employee that would have been covered under an employee benefit plan,[71] for up to 60 days or one-half the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever is lower;[72] and
  • A civil penalty of up to five hundred dollars for each day of the employer’s violation. However, the employer is not subject to this civil penalty if the employer pays the affected employees the amounts for which the employer is liable under Labor Code Section 1402 (i.e., the back pay and the value of the cost of any benefits) within three weeks from the date the employer orders the mass layoff, relocation, or termination;[73] and
  • Reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.[74] Note that a prevailing employee can recover reasonable attorney fees, but a prevailing employer cannot.[75] This is a key difference between the federal WARN Act and the California WARN Act—the federal WARN Act entitles an employer to recover reasonable attorney’s fees from an employee who loses a WARN Act lawsuit, but the California WARN Act does not.

A court may reduce the employer’s liability if—during the employer’s violation—the employer made any of the following payments to or on behalf of the affected employee(s):

  • Any wages, except vacation wages accrued before the employer’s violation;[76]
  • Any voluntary and unconditional payments to the employee that were not required to satisfy any legal obligation;[77] or
  • Any payments to a third party or trustee, such as premiums for health benefits or payments to a defined contribution pension plan, on behalf of and attributable to the employee.[78]

VI. Even If an Employer Is Unsure If the WARN Act Applies, the Law Suggests That the Employer Should Comply Anyway

The federal WARN Act includes a provision that suggests that even an employer not subject to the WARN Act should comply with it: “It is the sense of Congress that an employer who is not required to comply with the notice requirements . . . should, to the extent possible, provide notice to its employees about a proposal to close a plant or permanently reduce its workforce.”[79]

Federal legislative guidance suggests that in “ambiguous situations” where the federal WARN Act may or may not apply, “it would appear to be good business practice for an employer to provide advance notice to its workers or unions, local government and the State when terminating a significant number of employees . . . . It is, therefore, prudent for employers to weigh the desirability of advance notice against the possibility of expensive and time-consuming litigation to resolve disputes where notice has not been given. The Department encourages employers to give notice in all circumstances.”[80]

VII. Employees May Join Together to File a Class Action Lawsuit Against an Employer That Does Not Comply with the WARN Acts

Both the federal and California WARN Acts explicitly provide that a wronged employee can file a WARN Act claim as a class action.[81] Further, under California’s Private Attorney General Act (PAGA), a wronged employee can also file a lawsuit against the employer for violating the California WARN Act on behalf of themselves and other employees and as a representative for the State of California. Both options allow a wronged employee to bring a representative action (on behalf of other similarly situated wronged employees) against an employer that does not properly comply with the WARN Acts as follows.

1. Class Action Lawsuits

Class-action lawsuits are brought by one or more employees on behalf of a larger group of similarly situated employees. A class-action lawsuit is typically used when numerous employees want to make similar claims against their company. This type of lawsuit avoids the challenge of joining all individual employees in a single lawsuit and prevents the potential for inconsistent verdicts in separate lawsuits. To begin a class-action lawsuit, only one employee needs to file the case as the class representative. Depending on the case, a class-action lawsuit is filed in either federal or state court. While serving in this role, the class representative must act in the best interests of the other wronged employees affected by the employer’s violation of the federal or the California Warn Acts.

2. California’s PAGA Option

In addition to a traditional class action, California employees have another way to bring a collective action against an employer that violates the California WARN Act. PAGA allows employees to file a representative action against their employer for violations of the California WARN Act. A PAGA representative action is similar to a class action because, in a PAGA claim, only one employee is needed to represent all other similar aggrieved employees subject to the same violation. The time limit (statute of limitations) to file a PAGA claim is shorter than a traditional class action—only one year.[82] Therefore, an aggrieved employee impacted by an employer’s California WARN Act violation must act quickly to file a claim before the one-year statute of limitations expires.

VIII. Conclusion

The state and federal WARN Acts give affected employees, their families, and their communities time to prepare and adjust for an upcoming employment reduction. The WARN Acts require covered employers to provide affected employees at least 60 days’ notice before a triggering event such as a plant closing, a mass layoff, or—in California—a relocation. The notice must meet specific statutory requirements, and the employer must give proper notice to its employees before the triggering event. Employees affected by an event that triggers the WARN Act who don’t receive adequate notice from a covered employer can recover various forms of damages through a legal action filed in civil court.

References

[1] The Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. v. NASSCO Holdings Inc., 17 Cal. App. 5th 1105, 1122 (2017) (“In 1988, Congress enacted the federal WARN Act to require 60 days’ notice before any plant closing or mass layoff . . . in 2003, the California Legislature enacted its own version . . . believing the federal law was ineffective in various respects and seeking to supplement the law to provide stronger worker protections.”) (citing other sources) (internal citations omitted).arrow_drop_up

[2] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(1).arrow_drop_up

[3] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(8).arrow_drop_up

[4] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(a).arrow_drop_up

[5] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(b).arrow_drop_up

[6] Lugo-Rodriguez v. My World Enterprises, Inc., 2018 WL 2247578, at *2 (Cal. Super. 2018).arrow_drop_up

[7] 2023 California Assembly Bill No. 1356, California 2023–2024 Regular Session, 2023 California Assembly Bill No. 1356, California 2023–2024 Regular Session (emphasis added).arrow_drop_up

[8] The Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. v. NASSCO Holdings Inc., 17 Cal. App. 5th 1105, 1122, 1123 (2017) (“In expanding the protections, the [California] Legislature was concerned primarily that the federal WARN Act had limited application, requiring advance notice only when a large employer (with more than 100 employees) implements a large employee layoff (33 percent of the workforce or 500 employees). The California Legislature found these thresholds failed to alleviate the ‘devastating’ consequences of unannounced worker layoffs in many communities. The [California] Legislature thus enacted new minimums: the California WARN Act requires notices for layoffs of 50 workers (regardless of the percentage of the workforce), and applies to employers that employ 75 or more persons.”) (citing other sources) (internal citations omitted).arrow_drop_up

[9] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(h).arrow_drop_up

[10] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(2).arrow_drop_up

[11] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(3).arrow_drop_up

[12] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(3).arrow_drop_up

[13] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(5).arrow_drop_up

[14] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(6).arrow_drop_up

[15] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(d) (with punctuation added to improve readability).arrow_drop_up

[16] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(d).arrow_drop_up

[17] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(h).arrow_drop_up

[18] The Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. v. NASSCO Holdings Inc., 17 Cal. App. 5th 1105, 1122 (2017).arrow_drop_up

[19] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(e).arrow_drop_up

[20] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(f).arrow_drop_up

[21] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a).arrow_drop_up

[22] Local 1239, Intern. Broth. of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers and Helpers v. Allsteel, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 901, 906 (N.D. Ill. 1998) (“The language of the statute does not focus on the knowledge of the employee; it focuses on whether the defendant violated the statute and how long the violation lasted. Because the language is plain and specific, there is no reason for this court to add another prerequisite for liability.”) (emphasis added).arrow_drop_up

[23] 20 C.F.R. § 639.8; and see 29 U.S.C. § 2107(b) (“the mailing of notice to an employee’s last known address or inclusion of notice in the employee’s paycheck will be considered acceptable methods for fulfillment of the employer’s obligation to give notice to each affected employee . . . .”)arrow_drop_up

[24] 20 C.F.R. § 639.8 (“A ticketed notice, i.e., preprinted notice regularly included in each employee's pay check or pay envelope, does not meet the requirements of WARN.”).arrow_drop_up

[25] 20 C.F.R. § 639.7(d).arrow_drop_up

[26] 20 C.F.R. § 639.7(e).arrow_drop_up

[27] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(c). arrow_drop_up

[28] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(1).arrow_drop_up

[29] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(3).arrow_drop_up

[30] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(A).arrow_drop_up

[31] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(3).arrow_drop_up

[32] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(B).arrow_drop_up

[33] 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(3).arrow_drop_up

[34] 29 U.S.C. § 2103(1).arrow_drop_up

[35] 29 U.S.C. § 2103(2).arrow_drop_up

[36] 29 U.S.C. § 2103(2).arrow_drop_up

[37] 29 U.S.C. § 2103(2).arrow_drop_up

[38] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(b)(1). arrow_drop_up

[39] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(b)(1).arrow_drop_up

[40] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(b)(1).arrow_drop_up

[41] 29 U.S.C. § 2101(b)(2).arrow_drop_up

[42] Cal. Lab. Code § 1401(a).arrow_drop_up

[43] Cal. Lab. Code § 1401(a)(1).arrow_drop_up

[44] Cal. Lab. Code § 1401(b).arrow_drop_up

[45] Cal. Lab. Code § 1401(c). arrow_drop_up

[46] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402.5(d).arrow_drop_up

[47] Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1402.5(a), (b), (c).arrow_drop_up

[48] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(g)(1).arrow_drop_up

[49] Cal. Lab. Code § 1400.5(g)(2).arrow_drop_up

[50] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5) (“A person seeking to enforce…liability…may sue either for such person or for other persons similarly situated, or both, in any district court in which the violation is alleged to have occurred, or in which the employer transacted business.”).arrow_drop_up

[51] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(A).arrow_drop_up

[52] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(B).arrow_drop_up

[53] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(B).arrow_drop_up

[54] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(B).arrow_drop_up

[55] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(3).arrow_drop_up

[56] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(3).

[56]

[57] 29 U.S.C. §§ 2104(a)(3) and (4).arrow_drop_up

[58] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(6).arrow_drop_up

[59] The Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. v. NASSCO Holdings Inc.,17 Cal. App. 5th 1105, 1123 (2017) (“[U]under the California WARN Act, attorney fees are awarded only to prevailing plaintiffs (not to prevailing defendants as under federal law.”) (emphasis added) (citing other sources).arrow_drop_up

[60] Burns v. Stone Forest Industries, Inc., 147 F.3d 1182, 1182 (9th Cir. 1998).arrow_drop_up

[61] Burns v. Stone Forest Industries, Inc., 147 F.3d 1182, 1182 (9th Cir. 1998).arrow_drop_up

[62] Burns v. Stone Forest Industries, Inc., 147 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 1998).arrow_drop_up

[63] Burns v. Stone Forest Industries, Inc., 147 F.3d 1182, 1185 (9th Cir. 1998).arrow_drop_up

[64] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(b) (“[A] Federal court shall not have authority to enjoin a plant closing or mass layoff.”).arrow_drop_up

[65] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(2)(A).arrow_drop_up

[66] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(2)(B).arrow_drop_up

[67] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(2)(C).arrow_drop_up

[68] Cal. Lab. Code § 1404. arrow_drop_up

[69] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402(a)(1).arrow_drop_up

[70] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402(b).arrow_drop_up

[71] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402(a)(2)arrow_drop_up

[72] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402(b).arrow_drop_up

[73] Cal. Lab. Code § 1403 (However, if a court “determines that an employer conducted a reasonable investigation in good faith, and had reasonable grounds to believe that its conduct was not a violation” of the California WARN Act, then a “court may reduce the amount” of the civil penalty.) See, Cal. Lab. Code § 1405.arrow_drop_up

[74] Cal. Lab. Code § 1404.arrow_drop_up

[75] The Internat. Brotherhood of Boilermakers, etc. v. NASSCO Holdings Inc., 17 Cal. App. 5th 1105, 1116 (2017). arrow_drop_up

[76] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402(c)(1).arrow_drop_up

[77] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402(c)(2).arrow_drop_up

[78] Cal. Lab. Code § 1402(c)(3)arrow_drop_up

[79] 29 U.S.C. § 2106.arrow_drop_up

[80] 20 C.F.R. § 639.1(e) (emphasis added).arrow_drop_up

[81] 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(5) (“A person seeking to enforce such liability…may sue for such person or for other persons similarly situated, or both…”) (federal); and Cal. Lab. Code § 1404 (“A person…seeking to establish liability against an employer may bring a civil action on behalf of the person, other persons similarly situated, or both…”) (California).arrow_drop_up

[82] Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 340.arrow_drop_up