Spot Check Tools
warn-act layoff plant-closing notice hr

WARN Act Eligibility Checker (Federal 29 USC 2101)

Check whether a plant closing or mass layoff triggers the federal WARN Act, whether the 60-day notice was given, and whether a §2102(b) exception applies.

Event type

Check only if a faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstance, or natural disaster exception is being asserted. The tool will flag the statutory possibility without adjudicating whether the exception actually applies; that requires employment counsel.

Determination
Coverage:
Trigger:
Notice shortfall:

Federal only. State mini-WARN acts in California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York and other states frequently cover smaller employers or smaller events. This tool does not replace employment counsel.

About this tool

The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN, 29 USC 2101-2109) requires covered employers to give 60 days of written notice before a qualifying plant closing or mass layoff. Miss the threshold and the employer owes back pay and benefits for each day of the shortfall, capped at 60 days per affected employee under 29 USC 2104. The rules are mechanical but easy to miscount: coverage depends on employer size, trigger depends on both the event type and the count of affected employees, and notice is a flat 60 calendar days. Three statutory exceptions in §2102(b) (faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, natural disaster) can reduce the notice requirement, but whether any of them applies is a fact-intensive legal question.

This checker walks the four tests in order. Is the employer covered (100+ full-time employees)? Does the event qualify as a plant closing (50+ at a site that is shutting down) or a mass layoff (500+ anywhere, or 50-499 who are ≥33% of the single-site workforce)? Were 60 days of written notice given? If a §2102(b) exception is asserted, the output surfaces the statutory possibility and directs the user to counsel rather than quantifying liability.

Several states run "mini-WARN" acts that cover smaller employers or smaller events. California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York are the most consequential. This tool checks federal only. For state analysis, consult the state labor department or an employment lawyer. See the editorial standards for how we scope regulatory tools to named statutes rather than generic advice.

How it works

The tests follow 29 USC 2101 and 2102 directly:

  1. Employer coverage (29 USC 2101(a)(1)): at least 100 full-time employees, excluding part-time. The statute also has an alternative coverage test at §2101(a)(1)(B) based on combined hours of 4,000 per week across all employees; the tool simplifies to the headcount test.
  2. Plant closing trigger (29 USC 2101(a)(2)): shutdown of a single site resulting in 50+ full-time employees losing their jobs.
  3. Mass layoff trigger (29 USC 2101(a)(3)): 500+ full-time employees losing their jobs, OR 50-499 who represent at least 33% of the site's full-time workforce.
  4. Notice (29 USC 2102(a)): 60 calendar days of written notice to affected employees, the state dislocated-worker unit, and the local chief elected official.

When a trigger applies and notice is under 60 days, the shortfall (60 − noticeDays) is the liability window. Back pay and benefits per 29 USC 2104 are owed for each day of shortfall, per affected employee.

§2102(b) exceptions (not adjudicated): the statute permits reduced notice when one of three exceptions applies: a faltering company actively seeking capital, business circumstances not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would have been required, or a natural disaster. When any applies, notice is "as much as is practicable" with a brief written statement of the basis. The tool accepts a user-asserted exception flag and surfaces the possibility in the output; it does not try to decide whether the asserted exception actually qualifies, because that is a fact-intensive legal inquiry outside the scope of a checker tool. 29 CFR 639.9 defines the evidentiary requirements for each exception.

Examples

Input
120-employee employer, 55 affected, 45 days notice, mass layoff
Output
Shortfall 15 days; liability risk

Employer covered (120 ≥ 100). Mass layoff triggers because 55 is ≥50 and 55/120 = 45.8% ≥ 33%. Notice is 15 days short of the 60-day requirement, creating a 15-day liability window per affected employee.

Input
80-employee employer, 30 affected, 30 days notice, mass layoff
Output
Not covered (employer under 100 FT)

Federal WARN does not apply because the employer has fewer than 100 full-time employees. State mini-WARN acts in California, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and others cover smaller employers and may still apply.

Input
250-employee employer, 60 affected, 75 days notice, mass layoff
Output
Covered but trigger not met

Employer covered, but mass layoff does not trigger: 60/250 = 24%, below the 33% threshold required when the affected count is 50-499. The 75 days of notice given is irrelevant because the event is not a covered mass layoff under federal thresholds to begin with.

Input
200-employee employer, 75 affected, 15 days notice, mass layoff, §2102(b) exception asserted
Output
Shortfall 45 days; §2102(b) exception asserted

Employer covered; mass layoff triggers (75 is 37.5% of 200, over the 33% threshold). Only 15 days notice was given, a 45-day shortfall. The employer has asserted a §2102(b) exception. The tool surfaces the statutory possibility that notice can be reduced to what was practicable, with a brief basis statement, but leaves the question of whether the exception actually applies to employment counsel.

When to use

Use this to sanity-check a planned reduction in force or closure before the notice letter goes out, or to retrospectively check whether an employer met their obligation on a past event. This does not replace an employment lawyer. State mini-WARN acts frequently have lower triggers than federal. For any event that is close to the line, that spans multiple sites, or that involves a §2102(b) exception claim, consult counsel. Pair with the PTO accrual calculator when calculating final-pay obligations at separation.

Related concepts

Frequently asked questions

Do state mini-WARN acts override federal WARN?

They stack. An employer must comply with both federal WARN (if triggered) and any applicable state mini-WARN. Where the state rule has a lower trigger, the state rule effectively governs for employers below the federal threshold.

Does this apply to independent contractors?

No. WARN covers full-time W-2 employees. Independent contractors are not counted toward the 100-employee coverage threshold and are not entitled to WARN notice.

What counts as "written notice"?

29 CFR 639.7 describes the required form. The notice must be specific about the expected date of termination, whether the action is permanent or temporary, whether bumping rights exist, and who to contact for more information. A generic memo is not sufficient.

How do the §2102(b) exceptions work?

The statute names three: faltering company (employer actively seeking capital that would avoid or postpone the shutdown), unforeseeable business circumstances (event not reasonably foreseeable at the time notice would have been required), and natural disaster. When one applies, the notice requirement reduces to "as much notice as is practicable" plus a brief written statement of the basis. The evidentiary requirements are detailed at 29 CFR 639.9. Whether an exception applies in a specific case is fact-intensive and typically contested by employment counsel and DOL.

What happens if the event is both a plant closing and part of a larger mass layoff?

Either trigger independently requires the 60-day notice. If a single event could be characterized as both, both sets of thresholds may be relevant to aggregating affected employees for the larger notice determination. This tool checks only the single-event path the user selects; multi-site aggregation rules require a more detailed fact investigation.

Sources

Reviewed by Spot Check Tools Editorial on .