Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 to 2109, 20 CFR Part 639 · Read 2026-08-15
In force since 1989. Employers with one hundred or more employees must give sixty days of written notice before a plant closing or a mass layoff, and several states run their own notice laws with lower thresholds and longer periods.
Identifier
- Identifier
- 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 to 2109, 20 CFR Part 639
- Level
- Federal
- Status
- In force
- Adopted
- 1988-08-04
- Applies from
- 1989-02-04
- Supervisory bodies
- DOL Wage and Hour Division
Named requirements
Covered employers and events
Plant closing and mass layoff definitions and the employee count.
Sixty day notice
Notice to affected employees, the state dislocated worker unit and local government.
Exceptions
Faltering company, unforeseeable business circumstances and natural disaster.
Sale of a business
Who carries the notice duty before and after closing.
Official source
United States case law
20 decisions · Read from CourtListener, Free Law Project on 2026-08-22.
- Jules Gautier v. Tams Management, Inc.
4th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- A.H. v. N.Y. State Dep't of Health
2d Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Roberts v. Genting
68 F.4th 812d Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Easom v. US Well Services
37 F.4th 2385th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Waymo LLC v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
870 F.3d 1342Fed. Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- McKinney v. Carlton Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, Inc.
868 F.3d 4616th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Johnny Meadows v. Latshaw Drilling Company
866 F.3d 3075th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters Pension Fund v. Schal Bovis, Inc.
826 F.3d 3977th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Tracy Morton v. Vanderbilt University
809 F.3d 2946th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Darriest Likes v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.
787 F.3d 109611th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Petroski v. H & R Block Enterprises, LLC
750 F.3d 9768th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
- Barbara Petroski v. H&R Block Enterprises
8th Cir.Open to review by a higher court, the source does not state the outcome
Ask NovaCopilotGet the opinionRetrieved directly from Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit when you click. No permanent storage on our side.
Change monitoring
The row is re-read against the publisher's own publication on a fixed interval. The dates below can be checked on the spot and travel with the API response.
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Register | DOL Wage and Hour Division, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 to 2109, 20 CFR Part 639 |
| Publisher | U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division |
| Last read | 2026-08-15 |
| Interval | Every 30 days |
| Next re-read | 2026-09-14 |
| Status | Re-read overdue |
Row history
Dated events concerning this exact row, newest first. No event appears here without a date in a primary source.
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| 2026-08-15 | Row read against the official publication | U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division |
| 1989-02-04 | Date of application according to the publisher | U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division |
| 1988-08-04 | Adopted under 29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 to 2109, 20 CFR Part 639 | U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division |
Monitoring states when the row was checked, not how the legal position should be assessed.
Cite this row
The string below travels with a memo, a case file or an agent chain. The same string sits in the citation field of the API response.
29 U.S.C. §§ 2101 to 2109, 20 CFR Part 639, Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. NovaCopilot, https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/regler/warn-act (hämtad 2026-10-19, bevis sha256:946f20f4066a5531, bygge legal-2026-10-19).
- sha256:
- 946f20f4066a5531461eb89bc86582a909e7fa99f708df8fb0bbc350c5424c7e
- hämtad:
- 2026-10-19
- source_confidence:
- official
- bygge:
- legal-2026-10-19
- officiell källa:
- https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-20/chapter-V/part-639
Official publication. The address points to the authority or court that published the row. Office of the Federal Register, eCFR.
The row is a source reference with an official identifier. No legal advice and no compliance decision.
Verifiable trust signals
- Source-linked answers and explicit evidence gaps
- Obligations, controls, risks and consequences
- Stable objects and verifiable checksums
- Rule-based objects, optional source-linked reasoning
- Model card, source status and audit