20 C.F.R. § 639.1

Purpose and scope

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Purpose of WARN. The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN or the Act) provides protection to workers, their families and communities by requiring employers to provide notification 60 calendar days in advance of plant closings and mass layoffs. Advance notice provides workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training or retraining that will allow these workers to successfully compete in the job market. WARN also provides for notice to State dislocated worker units so that dislocated worker assistance can be promptly provided.

(b) Scope of these regulations. These regulations establish basic definitions and rules for giving notice, implementing the provisions of WARN. The Department's objective is to establish clear principles and broad guidelines which can be applied in specific circumstances. However, the Department recognizes that Federal rulemaking cannot address the multitude of industry and company-specific situations in which advance notice will be given.

It is the sense of Congress that an employer who is not required to comply with the notice requirements of section 3 should, to the extent possible, provide notice to its employees about a proposal to close a plant or permanently reduce its workforce.

(d) WARN enforcement. Enforcement of WARN will be through the courts, as provided in section 5 of the statute. Employees, their representatives and units of local government may initiate civil actions against employers believed to be in violation of § 3 of the Act. The Department of Labor has no legal standing in any enforcement action and, therefore, will not be in a position to issue advisory opinions of specific cases. The Department will provide assistance in understanding these regulations and may revise them from time to time as may be necessary.

(e) Notice in ambiguous situations. It is civically desirable and 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. In practical terms, there are some questions and ambiguities of interpretation inherent in the application of WARN to business practices in the market economy that cannot be addressed in these regulations. 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.

(f) Coordination with job placement and retraining programs. The Department, through these regulations and through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program (TAA) and Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Act (EDWAA) regulations, encourages maximum coordination of the actions and activities of these programs to assure that the negative impact of dislocation on workers is lessened to the extent possible. By providing for notice to the State dislocated worker unit, WARN notice begins the process of assisting workers who will be dislocated.

(g) WARN not to supersede other laws and contracts. The provisions of WARN do not supersede any laws or collective bargaining agreements that provide for additional notice or additional rights and remedies. If such law or agreement provides for a longer notice period, WARN notice shall run concurrently with that additional notice period. Collective bargaining agreements may be used to clarify or amplify the terms and conditions of WARN, but may not reduce WARN rights.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 141 cases (17 in the last 5 years), 1991–2026 · leading case: Cashman v. Dolce Int'l/Hartford, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 73 (D. Conn. 2004).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Cashman v. Dolce Int'l/Hartford, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 73 (D. Conn. 2004). · cites it 5× “’ ”) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a)); Burns v. Stone Forest Industries, Inc.”

Roberts v. Genting, 68 F.4th 81 (2d Cir. 2023). · cites it 2× “3d at 225 (brackets omitted) (quoting 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a)). Because it is a remedial statute, we construe the WARN Act's terms liberally.”

Stuart Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc, 827 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2016). “” 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a). If an employer violates the notice requirements in 29 U.”

Meson v. GATX Tech. Servs. Corp., 507 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “2007); 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a). The Act requires certain employers to provide affected employees with sixty-days notice of a plant closing or “mass layoff.”

Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642 (10th Cir. 2006). “20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a). 3 WARN directs that an employer can be liable for up to sixty days’ back pay and benefits to certain employees who lose their jobs as part of a plant closing or mass layoff 4 without receiving sixty days’ advanced notice.”

Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “[5] 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 confirms this understanding of the WARN Act's purposes: "Advance notice provides workers and their families some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment, to seek and obtain alternative jobs and, if necessary, to enter skill training…”

Virgil Deveraturda Bernard Sapitalo Shirley Sampayan Maria Lillibeth Edano v. Globe Aviation Sec. Servs., 454 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2006). “2004) (citing 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 ). He argues that it is enough that Globe was his employer, and laid him off without the required notice.”

Carpenters Dist. Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., Etc., Stephen J. Plescia, Etc. v. Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc., 15 F.3d 1275 (5th Cir. 1994). “1993); 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a) (1989) (final regulations).”

Varela v. AE Liquidation, Inc., 866 F.3d 515 (3rd Cir. 2017). “To ensure that laid-off workers and their families receive “some transition time to adjust to the prospective loss of employment,” 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 , the Act requires employers to give sixty days’ notice to all affected employees or their representatives prior to a mass layoff…”

Thomas v. North Star Steel Co., Inc., 838 F. Supp. 970 (M.D. Penn. 1993). · cites it 3× “20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a) (1992). Both statutes protect employees from job loss.”

United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. Alden Corrugated Container Corp., 901 F. Supp. 426 (D. Mass. 1995). · cites it 2× “20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a) (1994). Specifically, the Act provides in relevant part: 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— 1.”

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.), 235 B.R. 329 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999). · cites it 2× “1996) (“Grimmer ’’) 1 ; see also 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a). 2 In relevant part, it states that *337 [a]n 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— (1) to each representative of…”

Show all 141 citing cases →

— 20 C.F.R. § 639.1(a) — 3 cases

In Re Cargo, Inc., 138 B.R. 923 (Bankr. D. Iowa 1992).

In Re Riker Indus., Inc., 151 B.R. 823 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1993).

James Calloway v. Caraco Pharm. Lab., Ltd. (6th Cir. 2015).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.