US state laws requiring advance notice of mass layoffs in addition to the federal WARN Act requirements may pose challenges for downsizing companies. Washington state’s version of the WARN Act adds new complexity.
Key takeaways
- Washington state’s mini-WARN Act takes effect on 27 July 2025 and requires employers to provide employees 60 days’ written notice of mass layoffs
- The new law adds to a growing patchwork of state legislation, posing challenges for multi-state employers
- Amid mass layoffs, businesses should consider various means of compliance and ensure careful planning
Shutterstock.com/Zack Frank
The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act 1988 has, since February 1989, required employers across the US to provide advance notice of mass layoffs or business closings to employees.
In the decades since, several US states have enacted their own versions of that legislation, known as “mini-WARN Acts,” which impose additional requirements on in-state employers. Washington became the 14th state to do so; its mini-WARN Act takes effect on 27 July 2025.
Washington’s Securing Timely Notification and Benefits for Laid-Off Employees Act, or SB 5525, requires employers with 50 or more employees to provide 60 days’ written notice to affected employees and the Washington Employment Security Department before ordering a business closing or mass layoff. The notice requirements under SB 5525 expand on the WARN Act, directing employers to provide more information about the scope and schedule of the planned action.
Unlike the federal WARN Act, SB 5525 protects employees who are on leave under the Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave programme from a mass layoff, a limitation that is neither included in the WARN Act nor other state analogues.
Ohio also enacted a mini-WARN Act this year, but that law won’t take effect until 29 September 2025.
Patchwork of WARN laws
Joshua Ditelberg, partner at Seyfarth Shaw, said compliance with the WARN Act and various state analogues has become increasingly difficult because “more and more states have decided to impose the social and economic costs of significant displacements on employers.” Though all mini-WARN Acts mirror the federal legislation, each law varies in complexity and stringency.
Below is a glance at how four mini-WARN Acts impose requirements on employers that go beyond those outlined in the federal legislation. But first, the baseline federal requirements.
WARN Act
The WARN Act requires US employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 days’ written notice to affected employees and the state dislocated worker unit before ordering a business closing or mass layoff. The legislation excludes part-time employees from this threshold but establishes a weekly aggregate threshold for employers with 100 or more employees who work at least 4,000 hours per week.
Under the legislation, employers must provide a statement to affected employees that addresses whether the planned action is permanent, the expected date the planned action will commence, and the contact information of a company official who can provide more information about it. The WARN Act creates a private right of action and imposes civil penalties.
Notably, the WARN Act only covers the shutdown of “a single site of employment,” which Ditelberg said exhibits a focus on “local communities.”
“Part of what drove federal WARN in the 1980s was sort of a rash of closings of the one plant in a one-plant-town and devastating the local economy. There was an interest in providing some relief from that,” Ditelberg said.
New Jersey
New Jersey’s Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act is considered one of the most stringent mini-WARN Acts. Employers in New Jersey with 100 or more employees are required to provide 90 days’ written notice to affected employees and the Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development before ordering a mass layoff or business closing.
The state’s mini-WARN Act mandates that employers provide each affected employee with severance pay equal to one week of pay for each full year of employment. Further, employers must provide a statement addressing employees’ rights with respect to wage, severance, and counselling, among other things. The law covers both full-time and part-time employees working at or reporting to any of the employer’s locations within the state.
California
Like the federal law, California’s mini-WARN Act requires employers to provide 60 days’ written notice to affected employees and the state Employment Development Department before ordering a mass layoff or business closing. However, the state law has a higher employer-size threshold, covering employers with 75 or more employees.
California does not require notices to include information beyond what is mandated under the federal WARN Act. Employees are covered if they have worked for at least six of the 12 months preceding the WARN notice, whether they are based at a single site or spread across multiple locations.
Iowa
The Iowa WARN Act differs from the federal WARN Act in both employer threshold and notice requirements. The legislation mandates that employers with 25 or more employees provide 30 days’ written notice to affected employees and the Iowa Department of Workforce Development before ordering a mass layoff or business closing.
Iowa requires WARN notices to include the job titles of positions to be affected and the names of employees currently holding those jobs. The law excludes part-time employees and only covers shutdowns of a single site of employment, like the federal analogue.
Minnesota
Minnesota’s mini-WARN Act is among the most permissive. The law requires all employers who must provide notice under the federal WARN Act to notify the state Department of Employment and Education Development of a business closing or mass layoff. However, Minnesota merely “encourage[s]” businesses considering such actions to give early notice to affected employees.
Minnesota does not require notices to include more information than what is mandated under the WARN Act. The law excludes part-time employees and only covers shutdowns of a single site of employment.
“Known unknowns” of mini-WARN Acts
Trina Ricketts, shareholder at Ogletree Deakins and co-chair of the firm’s Reduction in Force (RIF)/WARN practice group, said “a big way” that mini-WARN acts can differ from each other and from the federal law “is in the definitions.”
“The federal WARN Act has very specific definitions of its terms. Each state where there’s a mini-WARN Act can have various definitions, and sometimes there’s not a lot of clarity in the definitions. For example, whether you’re a covered employer or who is considered an employee can vary in the state definitions,” Ricketts said. “That’s something that is very critical to look at, to make sure that employers are not assuming that a state mini-WARN Act tracks the federal WARN definitions.”
Similarly, Ditelberg identified several “known unknowns” that companies come across when trying to comply with the federal and state WARN Acts. He said many state statutes “leave a lot of interpretive questions [unanswered],” partly due to a lack of case law.
Ditelberg said that determining how to handle remote workers remains a common grey area under mini-WARN Acts. Many employers struggle with how to classify hybrid employees or those working remotely out of state, as “a lot of the states are either silent or kind of maddeningly ambiguous in terms of how you assess those folks,” Ditelberg said.
One way states are combatting this confusion is by attempting to amend their WARN laws to address remote work. The Maryland Department of Labor reissued proposed regulations on 14 June 2025 that would define “remote worker” and “telework” in the state’s Economic Stabilization Act. Ricketts said employers should “continue to watch” for similar efforts in other states.
Compliance with WARN laws
As mass layoffs surge across the US, compliance with the federal and state WARN Acts are more important than ever. According to a 2 July 2025 report from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Q2 2025 saw 247,256 job cuts, the highest Q2 total since 2020 (1,238,364).
The retail sector has cut the most private-sector jobs this year, driven in part by tariffs, whilst the technology sector continues to see mass layoffs amid the expansion of artificial intelligence (AI) in the workplace. Microsoft began laying off 6,000 workers – nearly 3% of its total workforce – on the same day Washington SB 5525 was enacted, notifying state officials that 1,985 of those cuts would occur at its Redmond headquarters.
Ditelberg pointed out that Washington, which is generally considered a “progressive state,” just enacted its mini-WARN Act this year, which could indicate a continued uptick in this legislation across other like-minded states. Employers may consider how they can comply with the growing number of laws “through alternative means,” Ditelberg said.
“One way to do this is by giving notice and then putting the employees on a paid notice leave or administrative leave so they remain employed during the notice period, but they’re essentially assigned to stay at home or put on leave during that period. This allows the employer to effectively comply with the statute, typically, but addresses the lack of actual need for the employee in the workplace for the entire notice period,” Ditelberg said.
Ricketts also said she thinks “we will continue to see mini-WARN Acts pop up.” She encourages employers considering RIFs to ensure careful planning.
“Doing an RIF or some type of restructuring without putting a lot of time and effort into the front end of the planning part can really trip up employers. And we know that these are often decisions that need to be made relatively quickly,” Ricketts said. “But employers need to start thinking about all the different laws at play and give themselves plenty of time to work through a reorganisation or RIF.”