The 'Fair Warning Act' Demands 90 Days' Layoff Notice, Public Database of Closures, and Stronger Employee Rights

The new Fair Warning Act of 2025 is looking to give the federal law that governs mass layoffs—the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act—a serious upgrade. Simply put, this bill is designed to make sure employees get more notice when their job is about to disappear and that the government is better prepared to step in. The biggest change? Employers will generally need to give 90 calendar days advance notice before a site closing or mass layoff, up from the current 60 days. This notice must go to the affected employees, the Secretary of Labor, and state and local agencies, kicking off a mandatory rapid response process.

The Layoff Rules Just Got Tighter

For anyone working a job, the definitions matter, and this bill tightens them up significantly (SEC. 2). A "Mass Layoff" is now triggered if you let go of 10 or more employees at one location, or 250 or more overall. Crucially, remote workers are now explicitly included in the count if their job loss is tied to the closing of a physical site. A “Site Closing” now happens if 5 or more employees lose their jobs within a 30-day period. This is a lower threshold than current law and means smaller, targeted cuts will trigger the notification requirement. The definition of "Employer" also expands slightly, now covering any business with 50+ employees or an annual payroll of at least $2,000,000. That payroll trigger could pull some smaller, high-value operations—like specialized tech firms or consulting groups—into the WARN Act's compliance net for the first time.

A Public Database of Job Cuts

One of the most practical changes for state and local governments—and for the public—is the mandated creation of a public database of layoff notices (SEC. 4). When a state receives a WARN notice, they have to send it to the Secretary of Labor, who must then make the details public. This database will be searchable by geography, industry, and the number of employees affected. Imagine you’re looking to buy a house or open a business in a new town; this database will give you a real-time, objective look at the local employment stability. For state agencies, this transparency is huge, allowing them to deploy training and reemployment resources much faster and more strategically.

Protecting Your Rights and Benefits

This bill strengthens employee protections in a couple of key ways. First, it explicitly states that you cannot waive your WARN Act rights unless you are represented by a private attorney or a certified union representative (SEC. 6). This blocks employers from slipping waivers into standard employment contracts or severance agreements, ensuring that if there’s a dispute, you have the right to challenge it in court. Furthermore, the bill mandates that employers must provide affected employees with a detailed guide created by the Department of Labor outlining all available benefits, including unemployment insurance, COBRA, and training programs, right when the notice is given (SEC. 6). This is a big deal; instead of scrambling to figure out what help is available, workers get a clear roadmap on day one.

Higher Stakes for Non-Compliance

If an employer fails to provide the required notice, the penalties get steeper and clearer (SEC. 4). The employer owes liquidated damages equal to 90 days of back pay. This calculation is expanded to include extra days if the employee was on parental, family, or medical leave during the violation period. This means the cost of ignoring the 90-day warning period is now substantially higher. Also, the statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit is set at four years, giving employees plenty of time to seek recourse. This section also clarifies that the right to sue is not blocked by pre-dispute arbitration agreements, which is a major win for employee access to the courts.

The Fine Print: Exceptions and Challenges

While the bill aims for maximum notice, it keeps the two main exceptions to the 90-day rule: the employer was actively seeking financing that would have prevented the layoff, or the layoff was caused by an unforeseen event like a natural disaster or a public health emergency (SEC. 2). If an employer uses one of these exceptions, they still have to give as much notice as possible and explain why they couldn't give the full 90 days. If they fail to give any notice in these situations, they are liable for the full 90 days of pay. This closes a loophole where employers might have argued an exception meant they didn't owe anything at all. The bill also clarifies that if a job is tied to a specific project, the employer can be exempt from the notice if the employee was told in writing at the time of hiring that the job was temporary and tied to that project's end (SEC. 3).