29 U.S.C. § 2104

Administration and enforcement of requirements

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 29 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Civil actions against employers(1) Any employer who orders a plant closing or mass layoff in violation of section 2102 of this title shall be liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss as a result of such closing or layoff for—(A) back pay for each day of violation at a rate of compensation not less than the higher of—(i) the average regular rate received by such employee during the last 3 years of the employee’s employment; or(ii) the final regular rate received by such employee; and(B) benefits under an employee benefit plan described in section 1002(3) of this title, including the cost of medical expenses incurred during the employment loss which would have been covered under an employee benefit plan if the employment loss had not occurred.Such liability shall be calculated for the period of the violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, but in no event for more than one-half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer.(2) The amount for which an employer is liable under paragraph (1) shall be reduced by—(A) any wages paid by the employer to the employee for the period of the violation;(B) any voluntary and unconditional payment by the employer to the employee that is not required by any legal obligation; and(C) any payment by the employer to a third party or trustee (such as premiums for health benefits or payments to a defined contribution pension plan) on behalf of and attributable to the employee for the period of the violation.In addition, any liability incurred under paragraph (1) with respect to a defined benefit pension plan may be reduced by crediting the employee with service for all purposes under such a plan for the period of the violation.(3) Any employer who violates the provisions of section 2102 of this title with respect to a unit of local government shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $500 for each day of such violation, except that such penalty shall not apply if the employer pays to each aggrieved employee the amount for which the employer is liable to that employee within 3 weeks from the date the employer orders the shutdown or layoff.(4) If an employer which has violated this chapter proves to the satisfaction of the court that the act or omission that violated this chapter was in good faith and that the employer had reasonable grounds for believing that the act or omission was not a violation of this chapter the court may, in its discretion, reduce the amount of the liability or penalty provided for in this section.(5) A person seeking to enforce such liability, including a representative of employees or a unit of local government aggrieved under paragraph (1) or (3), may sue either for such person or for other persons similarly situated, or both, in any district court of the United States for any district in which the violation is alleged to have occurred, or in which the employer transacts business.(6) In any such suit, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.(7) For purposes of this subsection, the term,11 So in original. The comma probably should not appear. “aggrieved employee” means an employee who has worked for the employer ordering the plant closing or mass layoff and who, as a result of the failure by the employer to comply with section 2102 of this title, did not receive timely notice either directly or through his or her representative as required by section 2102 of this title.(b) Exclusivity of remedies

The remedies provided for in this section shall be the exclusive remedies for any violation of this chapter. Under this chapter, a Federal court shall not have authority to enjoin a plant closing or mass layoff.

(Pub. L. 100–379, § 5, Aug. 4, 1988, 102 Stat. 893.)Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date

Section 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

Cited in 287 cases (57 in the last 5 years), 1989–2026 · leading case: Stuart Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc, 827 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2016).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stuart Day v. Celadon Trucking Servs., Inc, 827 F.3d 817 (8th Cir. 2016). · cites it 5× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(4). The district court denied both parties’ motions for partial summary judgment on damages “[bjecause questions remain[ed] as to the specific individuals who qualify as aggrieved employees” entitled to WARN Act damages.”

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× “Dillard further determined that the sixty-day penalty period in 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1)(A) referred to the number of work days within that period rather than the number of actual calendar days.”

In Re APA Transp. Corp. Consol. Litig., 541 F.3d 233 (3rd Cir. 2008). · cites it 8× “” 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1). It further enumerates who may bring a suit: A person seeking to enforce such liability, including a representative of employees or a unit of local government aggrieved under paragraph (1) or (3), may sue either for such person or for other persons…”

Jones v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 1276 (E.D. Tenn. 1990). · cites it 11× “What types of benefits might be recoverable pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1)(B), e.g., life insurance benefits where no death occurred, health insurance benefits where no medical expenses were incurred (not to include a determination of actual amounts during the first phase).”

Cashman v. Dolce Int'l/Hartford, Inc., 225 F.R.D. 73 (D. Conn. 2004). · cites it 11× “Employers are potentially liable to each aggrieved employee (who suffers an employment loss as a result of the closing or layoff) for back pay and for benefits under an employee benefit plan (including the costs of medical expenses incurred during the employment loss), all…”

Jones v. Kayser-Roth Hosiery, Inc., 748 F. Supp. 1292 (E.D. Tenn. 1990). · cites it 14× “BENEFITS 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a) provides that (1) Any employer who orders a plant closing or mass layoff in violation of section 2102 of this title shall be liable to each aggrieved employee who suffers an employment loss as a result of such closing or layoff for— (B) benefits…”

Allen v. Sybase, Inc., 468 F.3d 642 (10th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1). 5 An employer may be excused from the sixty-day notice requirement where a mass layoff was the result of an unforseen business circum *646 stance.”

Finnan v. LF Rothschild & Co., Inc., 726 F. Supp. 460 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). · cites it 7× “29 U.S.C. § 2104 . The Department of Labor is empowered to prescribe regulations for compliance with the law.”

Beatrice D. Saxion v. Titan-C-Mfg., Inc., 86 F.3d 553 (6th Cir. 1996). · cites it 4× “the final regular rate received by such employee----” 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1)(A). The statute further provides that “[s]uch liability shah be calculated for the period of the violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, but in no event for more than one-half the number of days the…”

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.), 235 B.R. 329 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1999). · cites it 8× “See 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a). It also states that the employer’s liability “shall be calculated for the period of the violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, but in no event for more than one-half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer.”

Fleming v. Bayou Steel, 83 F.4th 278 (5th Cir. 2023). · cites it 4× “29 U.S.C. § 2104 (a)(1). 9 Employers are liable for (A) back pay for each day of violation at a rate of compensation not less than the higher of— (i) the average regular rate received by such employee during the last 3 years of the employee’s employment; or (ii) the final…”

United Food & Com. Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544 (1996). · cites it 2× “See 29 U. S. C. § 2104 (b). Because the section makes no provision for liability to the union itself, any “such liability” sought by the union must (so far as concerns us here) be liability to its employee-members, so long as they can be understood to be “persons similarly…”

Show all 287 citing cases →

— 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a) — 1 case

Lavigne-Soucie v. Blue Max Transp., Inc. (W.D.N.C. 2023).

— 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1) — 3 cases

Local 1239, Int'l Bhd. of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. Allsteel, Inc., 9 F. Supp. 2d 901 (N.D. Ill. 1998).

Rivera-Pina v. Luxury Hotels Int'l of Puerto Rico, 100 F.4th 325 (1st Cir. 2024).

Tony Messer v. Garrison Inv. Grp., LP (4th Cir. 2026).

— 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)(A) — 1 case

Hawthorne v. Northview Vill., Inc. (E.D. Mo. 2025).

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.