You’ve Been WARNed: Washington Enacts a mini-WARN Law

Key Takeaways:

• The new law applies to employers with 50+ employees (excluding part-time workers) and mirrors many federal WARN Act provisions, with some notable distinctions
• Washington joins the majority of states with mini-WARN laws, requiring 60 days’ notice for certain mass layoffs and business closures
• Employers should review the new law to ensure compliance by its effective date, July 27, 2025

---

A Major Development in Washington Employment Law

On May 13, 2025, Washington State enacted the “Securing Timely Notification and Benefits for Laid-Off Employees Act,” a new mini-WARN law effective July 27, 2025 (the “WA WARN Act”).  The law, which expands employer obligations related to covered business closures and mass layoffs, applies to private employers with 50 or more employees “in this state, excluding part-time employees.”  This is a marked difference from the federal WARN Act, which applies to larger employers of 100 or more employees (excluding part-timers).  Unless defined differently in an applicable collective bargaining agreement, a part-time employee is an employee who works an average of less than 20 hours per week or has been employed less than 6 of the 12 months preceding the date on which notice is required. 

Covered Washington employers must now provide 60 days’ written notice to affected employees (or their bargaining representative) and the Employment Security Department (ESD) before implementing a “mass layoff” or “business closing”. These are defined by the statute as follows:  

• A “mass layoff” is a reduction in force not resulting from a business closing that causes an “employment loss” of 50 or more employees (excluding part-timer workers) in any 30-day period.
• A “business closing” is the permanent or temporary shutdown of a single employment site of one or more facilities or operating units that results in an “employment loss” of 50 or more employees.

An “employment loss” is a not-for-cause termination, a layoff exceeding six months, or a reduction in hours of more than 50% of individual employees’ work during each month of a 6-month period. Certain relocations or business consolidations are excluded if specified conditions are met.

Like the federal WARN Act and the majority of mini-WARN laws, the WA WARN Act recognizes exceptions to the 60-day notice requirement, including layoffs caused by unforeseeable business circumstances, natural disasters, or situations where the employer is actively seeking capital or new business and reasonably believes that giving notice would preclude obtaining necessary funding. 

How Washington’s Law Compares to the Federal WARN Act

The WA WARN Act largely mirrors the federal WARN Act, which sets a national baseline for advance notice of large-scale layoffs and closures, with both laws requiring 60 days’ advance notice of mass layoffs or business closures.  It diverges in several important respects, however:

1. Lower Employer Threshold: The new Washington law applies to smaller businesses – those with 50 or more employees in WA, excluding part-time workers, whereas the federal version only applies to employers with 100 or more employees (likewise excluding part-time workers).
2. Additional Penalties: The WA WARN Act carries enhanced enforcement mechanisms, including a private right of action and civil penalties of up to $500 per day for failure to notify the State.  As under the federal WARN Act, aggrieved employees can sue for up to 60 days of back pay and the value of any lost benefits.
3. Mass Layoffs: Unlike the federal WARN Act, Washington’s definition of a “mass layoff” is not expressly limited to a single site of employment. This creates an arguable ambiguity, meaning it is conceivable the legislature intentionally omitted “single site of employment” such that the WA WARN Act could be triggered by a reduction in force of at least 50 employees spread across the State. This interpretation would make Washington only the second state in the country to take this approach, following New Jersey with its much trumpeted mini-WARN amendments. We think it highly unlikely the Washington legislature intended to adopt this idiosyncratic approach without explicitly saying so. This conclusion is bolstered by the statutory requirement that WA WARN Act notices must contain the “name and address of the employment site where the business closing or mass layoff will occur” (emphasis added). That language indicates Washington’s definition of “mass layoff”, read in context of the statute as a whole, is limited to a single site of employment.
   
   In stark contrast to the federal WARN Act, Washington’s law does not require that the layoff affect at least 33% of the workforce at a single site.  As a result, a layoff of 50 employees in Washington may require notice even if it represents a small fraction of the total workforce.
4. Lookback Periods: Under the federal WARN Act, if there are enough covered employment losses within a rolling 30-day period at an employment site, the statute is triggered. Alternatively, if there aren’t enough covered losses within a rolling 30-day period but there are enough causally-related covered losses within a rolling 90-day period, federal WARN also is triggered in that manner.   Consequently, employers may stagger employment losses (i.e., over greater than 90-day periods) to potentially avoid a triggering event.
   
   In contrast, Washington’s WARN Act only counts covered employment losses over rolling 30-day periods, not alternatively 90-day ones. As a result, it may be easier to stagger employment losses to avoid a triggering event under the Washington statute.
5. More Detailed Notice Requirements. Although Washington WARN notices need not be sent to the “chief elected official” of the local government, the required notice contents are more detailed than those required under federal law.  These distinctions may reflect a more robust enforcement posture while at the same time mostly tracking the federal framework.

How Washington’s mini-WARN Law Fits In

Washington joins a growing cohort of states with mini-WARN statutes, but its approach is somewhat measured.  Like the federal WARN Act, Washington’s law requires 60 days’ advance notice of mass layoffs and closings, but it lowers the employer threshold to 50 employees, thereby capturing a broader range of employers.  This places Washington in line with states like Illinois and Maryland, which also apply their laws to smaller employers, but without adopting the more onerous provisions seen in jurisdictions like New Jersey, which mandates 90 days’ notice and severance pay. Like California, however, it does not require that a mass layoff impact 33% of the full-time workforce at an employment site in order to trigger notice requirements. 

On the whole, Washington’s law seems designed to achieve predictability for multistate employers while at the same time enhancing protections for local workers.  Unlike New Jersey and New York, which have expansive definitions of covered events and longer notice periods, Washington’s statute mostly mirrors the federal WARN structure, while introducing state-specific enforcement mechanisms and dropping the 33% requirement for mass layoffs.  Notably, Washington excludes employees on paid family or medical leave from layoff orders. In these various ways, Washington positions itself as a middle-ground jurisdiction—more protective than states that merely mirror federal WARN, but less burdensome than the most stringent state regimes.

For more on how Washington’s law compares to other mini-WARN laws, reach out to a Seyfarth attorney and ask about Survey Center.

What Employers Should Do Now

• Know if You’re Covered: If you have 50 or more employees in Washington (excluding part-time workers), the law likely applies to you. Evaluate whether upcoming business decisions—such as closures, layoffs, or relocations—could trigger the 60-day notice requirement.
• Track Headcount and Layoff Thresholds: Maintain accurate records of employee counts and monitor for events that may result in an “employment loss.” Be mindful that while part-time employees (as defined by the statute) are excluded from the threshold calculation to determine whether a triggering event has occurred, if such an event has occurred (because of full-time employment losses), the affected part-time employees also are entitled to notice.
• Document Carefully: If relying on an exception (e.g., unforeseeable business circumstances, natural disaster, or actively seeking capital), employers should maintain supporting documentation. The ESD may require this documentation to validate the exemption.
• Coordinate During Sales: If you’re buying or selling a business, clarify who is responsible for WARN notices before and after the transaction. In the event of a sale, the seller is responsible for providing notice of any layoffs or closures occurring up to the effective date of the transaction. The buyer assumes responsibility thereafter.

To ensure compliance and reduce risk, we recommend reaching out to a Seyfarth attorney for guidance tailored to your organization.