U.S. Code » Title 29 » Chapter CHAPTER 23— WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION

29 U.S.C. § 2101

Definitions; exclusions from definition of loss of employment

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) DefinitionsAs used in this chapter—(1) the term “employer” means any business enterprise that employs—(A) 100 or more employees, excluding part-time employees; or(B) 100 or more employees who in the aggregate work at least 4,000 hours per week (exclusive of hours of overtime);(2) the term “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;(3) the term “mass layoff” means a reduction in force which—(A) is not the result of a plant closing; and(B) results in an employment loss at the single site of employment during any 30-day period for—(i)(I) at least 33 percent of the employees (excluding any part-time employees); and(II) at least 50 employees (excluding any part-time employees); or(ii) at least 500 employees (excluding any part-time employees);(4) the term “representative” means an exclusive representative of employees within the meaning of section 159(a) or 158(f) of this title or section 152 of title 45;(5) the term “affected employees” means employees who may reasonably be expected to experience an employment loss as a consequence of a proposed plant closing or mass layoff by their employer;(6) subject to subsection (b), the term “employment loss” means (A) an employment termination, other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure, or retirement, (B) a layoff exceeding 6 months, or (C) a reduction in hours of work of more than 50 percent during each month of any 6-month period;(7) the term “unit of local government” means any general purpose political subdivision of a State which has the power to levy taxes and spend funds, as well as general corporate and police powers; and(8) the term “part-time employee” means 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.(b) Exclusions from definition of employment loss(1) In the case of a sale of part or all of an employer’s business, the seller shall be responsible for providing notice for any plant closing or mass layoff in accordance with section 2102 of this title, up to and including the effective date of the sale. After the effective date of the sale of part or all of an employer’s business, the purchaser shall be responsible for providing notice for any plant closing or mass layoff in accordance with section 2102 of this title. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, 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.(2) Notwithstanding subsection (a)(6), an employee may not be considered to have experienced an employment loss if the closing or layoff is the result of the relocation or consolidation of part or all of the employer’s business and, prior to the closing or layoff—(A) 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(B) 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.(Pub. L. 100–379, § 2, Aug. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 890.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Pub. L. 100–379, § 11, Aug. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 895, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] shall take effect on the date which is 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act [Aug. 4, 1988], except that the authority of the Secretary of Labor under section 8 [section 2107 of this title] is effective upon enactment.”

Short Title

Pub. L. 100–379, § 1(a), Aug. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 890, provided that: “This Act [enacting this chapter] may be cited as the ‘Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act’.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 473 cases (88 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 26× “SMITH, Circuit Judge: In this case of first impression, we must determine the meaning of the term "voluntary departure" under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification ("WARN") Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. We hold that, if an employee leaves a job *1003 because the…”
Stuart Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc, 827 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 9× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (a)(6). Relevant to this case, the WARN Act provides the following exception to the definition of “employment loss”: In the case of a sale of part or all of an employer’s business, the seller shall be responsible for providing notice for any plant closing or…”
Jones v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 1276 (E.D. Tenn. 1990). · cites it 15× “This is a class action brought pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 , et seq. The class is comprised of all former employees at the Harriman facility of Kay-ser-Roth Hosiery, Inc.”
MacIsaac v. Waste Mgmt. Collection & Recycling, Inc., 2005 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10484 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “” ( 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 (a)(3)(B), 2102(a).) MacIsaac argues that because the Legislature referred to the federal WARN Act in the California statute (see § 1401, subd.”
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). · cites it 7× “GRADY JOLLY, Circuit Judge: For the first time, this court is called upon to address the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. (Supp.1993). It requires some employers — generally those who are curtailing or closing an operation…”
North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29 (1995). · cites it 6× “890 , 29 U. S. C. § 2101 et seq. , obliges covered employers to give employees or their union 60 days notice of a plant closing or mass layoff.”
Roberts v. Genting, 68 F.4th 81 (2d Cir. 2023). · cites it 5× “After oral argument, because "[w]e ha[d] not previously considered the scope of 'operating unit' under 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (a)(2) or the meaning of 'organizationally or operationally distinct' under 20 C.”
Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers v. Nassco Holdings Inc., 226 Cal. Rptr. 3d 206 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 8× “" ( 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (a)(6)(B).) The parties filed cross summary judgment/adjudication motions raising primarily the duty issue: did the employer have a statutory duty to notify the affected employees even though the layoff was temporary, rather than permanent? The superior…”
Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, and the district court ruled for plaintiffs.”
John Ellis v. DHL Express, Incorpo, 633 F.3d 522 (7th Cir. 2011). · cites it 7× “First, the district court concluded that the DHL layoffs could not constitute a “plant closing” as defined in 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (a)(2) because the five Chicagoland facilities could not together be considered a “single site of employment,” and Price and Ellis failed to put forth…”
Judy Weekes-Walker v. Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc., 725 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2013). · cites it 9× “] 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (a)(2). A mass layoff is a reduction in force which .”
In Re Organogenesis Inc., 316 B.R. 574 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004). · cites it 8× “(the “Debtor”) violated the *578 Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (the “WARN Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq. In their proofs of claim, certain of the Debtor’s former employees 1 (the “Claimants”) asserted entitlement to back pay and benefits based on the Debt-…”
Show all 473 citing cases →
— 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(2) — 1 case
Long v. Dunlop Sports Grp. Americas, Inc., 506 F.3d 299 (4th Cir. 2007).
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.