U.S. Code
»
Title 29
» Chapter CHAPTER 23— WORKER ADJUSTMENT AND RETRAINING NOTIFICATION
29 U.S.C. § 2102
Notice required before plant closings and mass layoffs
(a) Notice to employees, State dislocated worker units, and local governmentsAn 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 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(2) 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.(b) Reduction of notification period(1) 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.(2)(A) 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.(B) 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.(3) 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.(c) Extension of layoff periodA 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—(1) 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(2) notice is given at the time it becomes reasonably foreseeable that the extension beyond 6 months will be required.(d) Determinations with respect to employment lossFor 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.
(Pub. L. 100–379, § 3, Aug. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 891; Pub. L. 105–277, div. A, § 101(f) [title VIII, § 405(d)(26), (f)(18)], Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–337, 2681–424, 2681–432; Pub. L. 113–128, title V, § 512(kk), July 22, 2014, 128 Stat. 1722.)Editorial NotesAmendments2014—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”.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2014 AmendmentAmendment 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 AmendmentAmendment 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.
Effective DateSection effective 6 months after Aug. 4, 1988, see section 11 of Pub. L. 100–379, set out as a note under section 2101 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Judy Weekes-Walker v. Macon Cnty. Greyhound Park, Inc., 725 F.3d 1276 (11th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 19× “§§ 2101-2109 , and as to MCGP’s assertion of the unforeseeable business circumstances defense, 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (b)(2)(A). MCGP’s former employees brought this class action suit pursuant to the WARN Act, alleging that in 2010, MCGP thrice violated the WARN Act’s requirement that…”
Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642 (10th Cir. 2006).
· cites it 6× “Rather, we must sort out the particular facts and determine how they fit within the Act’s aggregated mass layoff provision, 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (d). Unfortunately, WARN is less than clear with respect to mass layoffs occurring in an aggregation setting.”
Collins v. Gee West Seattle LLC, 631 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir. 2011).
· cites it 12× “" 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (a). An "affected employee" is one who "may reasonably be expected to experience an employment loss as a consequence of a proposed plant closing .”
Jones v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 1276 (E.D. Tenn. 1990).
· cites it 9× “Plaintiffs further contend that the defense of “business circumstances that were not reasonably foreseeable as of the time that notice would have been required” (hereinafter referred to as “business circumstances” defense), 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (b)(2)(A) does not justify KR’s…”
Gross v. Hale-Halsell Co., 554 F.3d 870 (10th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 8× “1995); see also 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (a); 20 C.F.R. § 639.1 (a).”
Stuart Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc, 827 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (a). On January 16, 2009, the employees filed a class-action complaint against Celadon, seeking damages under the WARN Act.”
North Star Steel Co. v. Thomas, 515 U.S. 29 (1995).
· cites it 4× “" 29 U. S. C. § 2102 (a). The employer is supposed to notify, among others, "each affected employee" or "each representative of the affected employees.”
In Re Organogenesis Inc., 316 B.R. 574 (Bankr. D. Mass. 2004).
· cites it 6× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (b)(3); see also 20 C.F.”
Teta v. Chow (In Re TWL Corp.), 712 F.3d 886 (5th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 4× “2000) (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (a)). Employers who violate the Act’s notice provision are required to provide “back pay for each day of violation.”
— 29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)(2)(B) — 1 case
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.