Search
The Employer Handbook Blog
WARNing: Your Remote Employees Might Be Entitled to Notice Too.
When a company closes its doors, the WARN Act requires advance notice to workers losing their jobs. But what about employees who work from home? A federal judge just signaled that “remote” doesn’t mean “exempt.”
TL;DR: A federal court in Washington allowed a WARN Act lawsuit to proceed after remote employees alleged they were laid off without 60 days’ notice. Although they worked from home, the plaintiffs claim they were assigned to a site with enough layoffs to trigger WARN coverage.
📎Read the full decision here
The WARN Act Basics
The WARN Act requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide 60 days’ notice before a plant closing or mass layoff at a single site of employment:
-
A plant closing is the permanent or temporary shutdown of a facility (or unit) that results in job losses for at least 50 full-time employees.
-
A mass layoff involves at least 500 full-time job losses—or 50 full-time job losses that also represent at least 33% of the workforce at the site.
Part-time workers don’t count toward those thresholds.
The law applies only if enough employees lose their jobs at a single site. The employer in this case argued that remote workers don’t count because they aren’t based at any one location. But the plaintiffs claimed they were formally assigned to physical worksites that experienced significant layoffs—just like the in-person staff who received notice.
That was enough for the court to let the case move forward.
And the cost of getting it wrong? Up to 60 days of back pay and benefits per affected employee.
Why the Plaintiffs Say They Were Entitled to Notice
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs worked remotely from Washington and Ohio in salaried, non-warehouse roles—such as HR and customer service. They allege they were assigned to specific company locations, including corporate headquarters in Seattle and a fulfillment center in Groveport, Ohio.
In November 2023, the employer announced it would wind down operations. WARN Act notices were issued to employees at three worksites: the Seattle HQ, the Nevada fulfillment center, and the Groveport fulfillment center. The plaintiffs—although allegedly assigned to those same sites—did not receive WARN notices or pay in lieu.
The plaintiffs claimed they were tied to those physical sites through reporting relationships, job descriptions, and attendance at in-person meetings. They argue that this made them “affected employees” under the WARN Act.
The employer moved to dismiss, arguing that the remote workers were not part of any “single site of employment” and could not be counted toward WARN thresholds.
The court denied the motion to dismiss, emphasizing that at this early stage, the question wasn’t whether the plaintiffs would ultimately win—but whether they had plausibly alleged a WARN Act violation. The court found that they had.
Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed they were assigned to sites where at least 50 employees were laid off, that they reported to managers based at those locations, and that their roles were organizationally tied to those facilities. That was enough, the court said, to support a plausible claim that they were “affected employees” under the WARN Act.
In short, the employer’s site-based arguments may ultimately succeed—but not at the pleading stage. The case now proceeds to discovery.
What Employers Should Do Now
- Remote employees might still count toward the WARN threshold
The court let remote workers’ claims proceed based on their assignment to affected worksites. And it’s not alone—another court certified a WARN class that included remote employees tied to a physical facility. - Hybrid = Riskier than You Think
Employees who occasionally show up in person—or were regularly attending meetings onsite—could bolster a WARN claim. The less clarity around site assignments, the more exposure you may face. - Spell out assignments clearly
In offer letters, job descriptions, or internal systems, document each employee’s assigned site of employment. That paperwork could be the difference between dismissal and a class action. - The penalties add up fast
WARN Act violations can cost up to 60 days of back pay and benefits per affected employee. Multiply that across dozens (or hundreds) of remote workers, and you’ve got a serious financial risk.
The Bottom Line
Don’t assume your remote team is outside WARN coverage. If they’re connected to an affected facility—by assignment or reporting structure—they may be entitled to notice. Courts are increasingly open to that argument.
This case didn’t resolve the facts. But it’s a clear warning to employers: remote doesn’t mean risk-free.