20 C.F.R. § 639.2
What does WARN require?
WARN requires employers who are planning a plant closing or a mass layoff to give affected employees at least 60 days' notice of such an employment action. While the 60-day period is the minimum for advance notice, this provision is not intended to discourage employers from voluntarily providing longer periods of advance notice. Not all plant closings and layoffs are subject to the Act, and certain employment thresholds must be reached before the Act applies. WARN sets out specific exemptions, and provides for a reduction in the notification period in particular circumstances. Damages and civil penalties can be assessed against employers who violate the Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Gross v. Hale-Halsell Co., 554 F.3d 870 (10th Cir. 2009).
Gross v. Hale-Halsell Co., 554 F.3d 870 (10th Cir. 2009). “The Unforeseeable Business Circumstance Exception The WARN Act requires employers to give at least sixty days’ notice in advance of a mass layoff, 20 C.F.R. § 639.2 , calculated from a fourteen-day window during which the layoff is expected to occur, 20 C.”
Local 2-1971 of Pace Int'l Union v. Cooper, 364 F. Supp. 2d 546 (W.D.N.C. 2005). “20 C.F.R. §§ 639.2 , 639.3; Pearson v. Component Tech.”
Czyzewski v. Jevic Transp., Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 496 B.R. 151 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013). “§ 2102 (a)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. § 639.2 (stating that the 60-day period for advance notice is the minimum).”
Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.), 235 B.R. 329 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999). “20 C.F.R. § 639.2 . 9 . That section states, as follows: Notice to each affected employee who does not have a representative is to be written in language understandable to the employees and is to contain: (1)A statement as to whether the planned action is expected to be…”
Czyzewski v. Jevic Transp., Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 492 B.R. 416 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013). “§ 2102 (a)(1); see also 20 C.F.R. § 639.2 (stating that 60-days advance notice is the minimum).”
Sigmon v. Recovery Equity Investors, L.P. (In Re Shelby Yarn Co.), 306 B.R. 523 (W.D.N.C. 2004). “20 C.F.R. §§ 639.2 , 639.3 (“WARN requires employers who are planning a plant closing or mass lay-off to give affected employees at least 60 days’ notice of such an employment action,” and citing factors *537 for determining single versus separate employers); 29 U.”
Carpenters Dist. Council of New Orleans & Vicinity v. Dillard Dep't Stores, Inc., 790 F. Supp. 663 (E.D. La. 1992). “20 C.F.R. § 639.2 (a)(2). Defendants have stipulated that Dillard was responsible for the decisions to close the business sites involved in this case, to terminate all employees, and when and to whom to send the WARN notices.”
Angles v. Flexible Flyer Liquidating Trust (In Re Flexible Flyer Liquidating Trust), 511 F. App'x 369 (5th Cir. 2013). “20 C.F.R. § 639.2 . Advance notice is meant to provide “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.”
Leeper v. All. Res. Partners, L.P., 356 F. Supp. 3d 761 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “20 C.F.R. § 639.2 . The WARN Act defines a "mass layoff" as a reduction of force which results in employment loss for "at least 33 percent of the employees" and "at least 50 employees.”
Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.), 164 B.R. 24 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1994). “§ 2102 ; 20 CFR Part 639.2. Ex. 7 at 281.) We need not reach possible questions arising out of the facts, well-pleaded or otherwise, for on the face of his pleadings, the Plaintiffs claim does not entitle him to relief.”
United Mine Workers of Am. v. Martinka Coal Co., 202 F.3d 717 (4th Cir. 2000). “See 20 C.F.R. § 639.2 (“WARN requires employers .”
Heinz v. Dubell Lumber Co., No. 1:19-cv-08778 (D.N.J. Nov. 25, 2020). “20 C.F.R. § 639.2 . The WARN Act’s requirements only apply to certain types of employers.”
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.