Layoff Surge Spurs Fresh Push to Update Federal, State WARN Acts

Spikes in layoffs and growing fears of AI-fueled job losses are adding urgency for policymakers and advocates hoping to strengthen the early-notice requirements for employers making workforce cuts.

At least four states passed new or revised requirements in 2025 piggybacking off the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The WARN Act mandates that businesses notify workers at least 60 days in advance of a large layoff or workplace closure. Fifteen states impose their own similar requirements, sometimes called mini-WARN Acts.

But worker advocates are pushing for a more aggressive overhaul, given the evolution of American jobs since the WARN Act’s enactment in 1988 and the current economic climate—including large layoff announcements at companies from Amazon.com Inc. to Paramount and Southwest Airlines Co. It could come through a federal measure such as the Democratic-sponsored Fair Warning Act (H.R. 5761), or through further state legislative action.

The WARN Act “was adopted at a time when you had plants that were employing a couple thousand people,” said John Philo, executive and legal director at the Sugar Law Center for Economic and Social Justice. “The act needs to be updated” to account for more dispersed workforces, including some dominated by remote employees.

Layoff notices surged to unusual highs for a second time this year in October, the latest month with available data, when just over 39,000 workers got WARN Act notifications, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. The Fed tallied more than 40,000 notices in May, the highest total since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Some companies have begun attributing cuts to their growing use of artificial intelligence tools.

The elevated volume of WARN notices reflects just a fraction of layoffs, as the federal law’s requirements apply only to employers with more than 100 employees laying off at least 50 at a single worksite. Some state laws apply lower thresholds.

Philo and his colleagues at Sugar Law frequently hear complaints from laid-off workers about employers failing to provide the required WARN notice, he said, especially remote workers and those in the tech industry.

More than 200 lawsuits citing the WARN Act landed in federal courts in the past 12 months, according to an analysis of Bloomberg Law dockets. These include workers claiming violations by Amazon Logistics, Catalyst Brands, SK Battery America, and Marriott International Inc. affiliate Sonder USA. Some briefly reference WARN amid broader claims such as workplace discrimination or employee benefits law violations.

Nationwide data on WARN Act compliance is difficult to find, but in one state, Alabama, the majority of employers giving notice of large layoffs or closures provided less than the required 60 days, according to an AL.com analysis of WARN notices since the state’s Commerce Department began publishing them in 1998.

The WARN Act allows exceptions for the 60-day notice requirement, such as for unforeseen circumstances leading to layoffs or plant closure.

‘Frustrating for Employers’

Following the law can be tricky, for example when a struggling business trims jobs over a span of months without knowing upfront how many it will cut, said John R. Cernelich, co-chair for labor and employment at Calfee, Halter & Griswold LLP in Cleveland, Ohio.

Compliance gets more complicated as more states adopt their own laws, some of which differ from the federal WARN Act, he said.

California (SB 617) and New York in 2025 revised the details that employers must include in WARN notices, requiring California businesses to give workers info on retraining and food assistance resources while New York businesses must disclose whether use of AI or automation tools triggered a mass layoff.

Ohio (HB 96) and Washington state (SB 5525) lawmakers enacted new mini-WARN Acts earlier this year.

The Ohio law includes contradictory and confusing language regarding the layoff threshold that triggers a notice requirement, Cernelich said.

“Perhaps in Ohio we’ve expanded on the WARN obligations, but perhaps we didn’t,” he said. “I shouldn’t have to say that. It’s frustrating for employers.”

Among existing state-law variations, New York state requires 90 days’ notice and covers employers with 50 or more employees. Hawaii, Maine, and New Jersey require employers to provide severance pay to the laid-off workers.

“I’ve worked on these with employers where they had to notify employees in multiple states,” said Brooke Tabshouri, special counsel at Duane Morris LLP in California. The required content of the notices also can vary somewhat, but “the bones of it are largely the same.”

Tougher Enforcement

A key goal for backers of the congressional proposal is to strengthen enforcement against companies that don’t meet the notice requirements, said Rep. Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio), a lead sponsor of the bill.

The existing law “has no teeth,” she said. “What’s a law if you don’t have any enforcement mechanism?”

Labor departments and other agencies have no WARN Act enforcement powers under existing state and federal laws. Laid-off workers can sue for relief in federal court, but they’re generally limited to backpay and benefits for up to 60 days with no penalties on employers for the violations, Philo said.

Among the proposed changes in the congressional bill, employers would be liable for damages equal to 30 days of pay for each affected worker, in addition to backpay and benefits. The bill also would impose liability on affiliates of a parent company, increase the required notice to 90 days, and apply the rules to employers with 50 or more employees.

The bill hasn’t attracted any cosponsors from the House’s Republican majority.

Advocates are urging states to fill in the gaps until they can get federal revisions through Congress, looking to better ensure workers get advance notice before losing their jobs, Philo said.

“It’s an old adage, right? It’s easier to find a job when you have job,” he said. “It sounds kind of corny, but it actually is true.”