Labor LawJune 29, 2026

WARN Laws by State: A Comprehensive Review

The federal WARN Act is the floor — more than a dozen states have enacted their own "mini-WARN" laws with stronger worker protections. Here's what employers and workers need to know in every state.

The Federal WARN Act

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101–2109, was enacted in 1988 and took effect in 1989. It requires covered employers to give affected workers at least 60 calendar days' advance notice before a plant closing or mass layoff. The law is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor.

Employer threshold100 or more full-time employees (or 100+ working a combined 4,000+ hours/week)
Plant closing triggerPermanent or temporary shutdown of a single site affecting 50+ workers
Mass layoff triggerLayoff of 500+ workers, or 50–499 workers representing 33% or more of the workforce
Notice period60 calendar days
Penalty for violationBack pay and benefits for each day of violation, up to 60 days; $500/day civil penalty for failure to notify the local government
ExceptionsFaltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances, natural disaster, sale of business

Notice must be given to: (1) the affected workers or their union representative; (2) the state's dislocated-worker unit; and (3) the chief elected official of the local government where the employment site is located. The WARN Database collects the notices filed with state agencies as required under this provision.

Critically, the federal WARN Act is a floor. States are free to enact stronger protections, and many have — lowering employer thresholds, extending notice periods, and adding severance requirements. When state law is more protective than federal WARN, the state law governs.

States with Mini-WARN Laws

As of 2026, 14 states have enacted their own WARN-style advance-notice statutes that go beyond the federal floor. Each is summarized below.

California

Cal. Lab. Code §§ 1400-1408 (Cal-WARN)

View California Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

75 employees

Event Trigger

50 workers (no 33% rule)

California's Cal-WARN Act strengthens federal protections significantly. It covers employers with as few as 75 employees (vs. the federal threshold of 100) and requires 60 days' notice for layoffs of 50 or more workers at a single site — removing the federal "33% of workforce" test entirely. There is no faltering-company exception, and the law applies to both mass layoffs and plant closures as well as relocations.

Key difference from federal WARN: Lower employer threshold (75 vs. 100); no "33% of workforce" trigger; no faltering-company exception.

New York

NY Lab. Law §§ 860-860-i (NY WARN)

View New York Data →

Notice Required

90 days

Employer Threshold

50 employees

Event Trigger

25 workers or 33% of workforce

New York's WARN Act requires 90 days' advance notice — 30 days more than the federal minimum — and applies to employers with just 50 employees. A qualifying event is triggered by 25 or more workers or 33% of the workforce at a single site. Workers are entitled to back pay and benefits for any violation of the 90-day notice period.

Key difference from federal WARN: Notice period is 90 days (vs. 60 federal); applies to smaller employers (50 vs. 100).

New Jersey

N.J. Stat. §§ 34:21-1 et seq. (NJ WARN / Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act)

View New Jersey Data →

Notice Required

90 days (as of 2023 amendments)

Employer Threshold

100 employees

Event Trigger

50 workers

New Jersey's WARN Act, significantly strengthened by 2023 amendments, requires 90 days' notice and mandates severance pay of one week per year of service (up to 10 weeks) for all affected workers — regardless of whether proper notice was given. The severance requirement is one of the most robust in the country and applies even when the employer gives adequate notice.

Key difference from federal WARN: Mandatory severance (1 week per year of service, up to 10 weeks) regardless of whether notice was given; 2023 amendments expanded coverage significantly.

Illinois

820 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (IL WARN)

View Illinois Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

75 employees

Event Trigger

25 workers and 33% of workforce, or 250+ workers

Illinois's WARN law applies to employers with at least 75 employees and requires 60 days' notice. A qualifying mass layoff is triggered either by 25+ workers who also represent 33% of the workforce, or by any layoff of 250 or more workers. The law otherwise mirrors federal WARN but extends coverage to more employers due to the lower threshold.

Key difference from federal WARN: Lower employer threshold (75 vs. 100); two alternative triggers: (1) 25+ workers AND 33% of workforce, or (2) 250+ workers regardless of percentage.

Massachusetts

M.G.L. c. 149 §§ 182-182B (Massachusetts Plant Closing Law)

View Massachusetts Data →

Notice Required

90 days

Employer Threshold

50 employees (in operation 1+ year)

Event Trigger

25 workers

Massachusetts requires 90 days' advance notice for plant closings affecting 25 or more workers at establishments in operation for at least one year. If full notice is not given, the employer must pay severance of two weeks for each year of service. The law specifically targets facility closures rather than temporary mass layoffs.

Key difference from federal WARN: 90-day notice period; severance of two weeks per year of service if notice not given; applies specifically to plant closings.

Connecticut

Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-51o through 31-51x

View Connecticut Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

100 employees

Event Trigger

25 workers

Connecticut's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act mirrors federal WARN in most respects but lowers the trigger to 25 or more employees and focuses specifically on plant closures. Employers with 100+ employees who close a facility must give 60 days' notice to the affected workers and the state.

Key difference from federal WARN: Applies to closures (not mass layoffs); requires 60 days and triggers at 25 workers (vs. 50 federal).

Maine

26 M.R.S. § 625-B (Maine Severance Pay Act)

View Maine Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

100 employees (1+ year)

Event Trigger

25 workers

Maine's advance notice law applies to employers with 100 or more employees and requires 60 days' notice for the closure or relocation of a facility affecting 25 or more workers. Unlike federal WARN, Maine imposes a severance-pay requirement: workers are entitled to one week of pay per year of service if the employer fails to provide full advance notice.

Key difference from federal WARN: Requires severance pay (1 week per year of service) if employer fails to give full notice; applies to layoffs of 25+.

Maryland

Md. Code, Lab. & Empl. §§ 11-301 et seq.

View Maryland Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

50 employees

Event Trigger

25 workers

Maryland requires 60 days' advance notice from employers with 50 or more employees when laying off 25 or more workers. The law has a significantly lower employer and trigger threshold than federal WARN and is administered by the Maryland Department of Labor.

Key difference from federal WARN: Lower employer threshold (50 vs. 100) and lower trigger (25 workers vs. 50 federal).

Minnesota

Minn. Stat. § 116L.976

View Minnesota Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

100 employees

Event Trigger

50 workers or 33% of workforce

Minnesota largely tracks federal WARN requirements but mandates that notice be submitted directly to the state Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development. The law applies to employers with 100+ employees and layoffs of 50 or more workers or 33% of the workforce at a single site.

Key difference from federal WARN: Follows federal WARN structure but notice is required to the state Commissioner of Employment and Economic Development.

Oregon

Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.060

View Oregon Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

100 employees

Event Trigger

Plant/facility closure (affects 25+ workers)

Oregon requires 60 days' advance notice for the closure of an establishment that employs 100 or more persons and will result in at least 25 workers losing their jobs. The law is narrower than federal WARN in that it focuses on permanent closures rather than temporary mass layoffs, but it has a lower worker trigger (25 vs. 50).

Key difference from federal WARN: Applies specifically to permanent plant closures rather than temporary mass layoffs; 25-worker trigger.

Tennessee

Tenn. Code §§ 50-1-601 et seq.

View Tennessee Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

50 employees

Event Trigger

25 workers

Tennessee's plant closing and mass layoff notification law applies to employers with as few as 50 employees — half the federal threshold — and requires 60 days' advance notice for layoffs affecting 25 or more workers. The law generally mirrors the federal WARN Act's procedures and exceptions but reaches a broader range of employers.

Key difference from federal WARN: Lower employer threshold (50 vs. 100 federal); applies to layoffs of 25+ workers.

Hawaii

Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 394B-1 et seq.

View Hawaii Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

50 employees

Event Trigger

25 workers

Hawaii's WARN law covers employers with at least 50 employees and requires 60 days' advance notice for layoffs or closures affecting 25 or more workers. The law is similar to the federal WARN Act in structure but extends coverage to smaller employers.

Key difference from federal WARN: Lower employer threshold (50 vs. 100); applies to layoffs of 25+.

Wisconsin

Wis. Stat. § 109.07

View Wisconsin Data →

Notice Required

60 days

Employer Threshold

50 employees

Event Trigger

25 workers or 33% of workforce

Wisconsin requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide 60 days' advance notice when laying off 25 or more workers or 33% of the workforce. The Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development administers the law, which extends coverage to employers half the size required under federal WARN.

Key difference from federal WARN: Lower employer threshold (50 vs. 100); applies to 25+ workers or 33% of workforce.

Iowa

Iowa Code §§ 84C.1-84C.4

View Iowa Data →

Notice Required

30 days

Employer Threshold

25 employees

Event Trigger

Any closure or mass layoff

Iowa requires only 30 days' advance notice (vs. the federal 60) but extends coverage to employers with as few as 25 employees. The Iowa law is primarily focused on plant closings rather than temporary layoffs and is administered through the Iowa Workforce Development agency.

Key difference from federal WARN: Very short notice period (30 days vs. 60 federal); covers very small employers (25+).

States Without Mini-WARN Laws

The majority of states do not have their own mini-WARN laws. Employers in these states are subject only to the federal WARN Act — meaning the 100-employee threshold, 60-day notice period, and 50-worker/33% mass layoff trigger all apply without modification.

This includes major labor markets such as Texas, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Virginia. Workers in these states have substantially fewer advance-notice protections than workers in states like New York (90 days) or New Jersey (mandatory severance).

Note that even in states without a mini-WARN law, employers still must notify the state's Dislocated Worker Unit as part of the federal WARN filing process — which is the source of the data collected by the WARN Database.

Enforcement and Practical Considerations

Federal WARN is enforced through private civil litigation — there is no federal agency that independently investigates or penalizes WARN violations. Affected workers or their union representatives must bring suit in federal district court. This creates a significant enforcement gap: many small-scale WARN violations go unchallenged because litigation costs exceed potential recovery.

Several state mini-WARN laws improve on this. New Jersey, Maine, and Massachusetts, for example, provide mandatory severance rights that are easier to vindicate than back-pay litigation. New York and California have active state labor enforcement offices that receive WARN notices and can trigger rapid-response services.

Despite the law's age, WARN Act compliance remains inconsistent. The WARN Database regularly identifies layoffs that appear to be above the legal threshold but were never filed with the appropriate state agency — a pattern that has been documented by researchers at the Federal Reserve and the IZA Institute of Labor Economics.

Browse WARN Act Data by State

The WARN Database collects and standardizes WARN Act notices from 49 states and territories. Search all 2026 filings or browse by state below.