29 U.S.C. § 2102
Section 2102 · Notice required before plant closings and mass layoffs
This is § 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
Amended 3 times on record
The circuits are split over this section — Whether, under the WARN Act's unforeseeable-business-circumstances exception, an employer that gave deficient or no advance notice is fully liable for the entire 60-day period (all-or-nothing) or may reduce its liability by the notice actually provided
Applied in 274 court decisions — leading case North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas (1995)
Most recently applied in Rivera-Pina v. Luxury Hotels International of Puerto Rico (May 2024)
Cases citing this section usually also cite 29 U.S.C. § 2101 · 29 U.S.C. § 2104 · 29 U.S.C. § 2107
How often courts cite this section
Court decisions citing this, by year.Markers show enactment, consequential amendments, and circuit splits over this section — watch for a citation surge after a change or a disagreement. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.
An employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order—
to each representative of the affected employees as of the time of the notice or, if there is no such representative at that time, to each affected employee; and
to the State or entity designated by the State to carry out rapid response activities under section 3174(a)(2)(A) of this title, and the chief elected official of the unit of local government within which such closing or layoff is to occur.
If there is more than one such unit, the unit of local government which the employer shall notify is the unit of local government to which the employer pays the highest taxes for the year preceding the year for which the determination is made.
An employer may order the shutdown of a single site of employment before the conclusion 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.
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.
No notice under this chapter shall be required 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.
An employer relying on this subsection shall give as much notice as is practicable and at that time shall give a brief statement of the basis for reducing the notification period.
A layoff of more than 6 months which, at its outset, was announced to be a layoff of 6 months or less, shall be treated as an employment loss under this chapter unless—
the extension beyond 6 months is caused by business circumstances (including unforeseeable changes in price or cost) not reasonably foreseeable at the time of the initial layoff; and
notice is given at the time it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the extension beyond 6 months will be required.
For purposes of this section, in determining whether a plant closing or mass layoff has occurred or will occur, employment losses for 2 or more groups at a single site of employment, each of which is less than the minimum number of employees specified in section 2101(a)(2) or (3) of this title but which in the aggregate exceed that minimum number, and which occur within any 90-day period shall be considered to be 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 an attempt by the employer to evade the requirements of this chapter.
Editorial notes U.S. Code · Office of the Law Revision Counsel
Amendments
2014—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 113–128 substituted “the State or entity designated by the State to carry out rapid response activities under section 3174(a)(2)(A) of this title,” for “the State or entity designated by the State to carry out rapid response activities under section 2864(a)(2)(A) of this title,”.
1998—Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 105–277, § 101(f) [title VIII, § 405(f)(18)], struck out “the State dislocated worker unit or office (referred to in section 1661(b)(2) of this title), or” before “the State or entity”.
Pub. L. 105–277, § 101(f) [title VIII, § 405(d)(26)], substituted “to the State dislocated worker unit or office (referred to in section 1661(b)(2) of this title), or the State or entity designated by the State to carry out rapid response activities under section 2864(a)(2)(A) of this title, and the chief” for “to the State dislocated worker unit (designated or created under title III of the Job Training Partnership Act) and the chief”.
Effective Date of 2014 Amendment
Amendment by Pub. L. 113—128 effective on the first day of the first full program year after July 22, 2014 (July 1, 2015), see section 506 of Pub. L. 113—128, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3101 of this title.
Effective Date of 1998 Amendment
Amendment by section 101(f) [title VIII, § 405(d)(26)] of Pub. L. 105–277 effective Oct. 21, 1998, and amendment by section 101(f) [title VIII, § 405(f)(18)] of Pub. L. 105–277 effective July 1, 2000, see section 101(f) [title VIII, § 405(g)(1), (2)(B)] of Pub. L. 105–277, set out as a note under section 3502 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.