Order Code RL31250
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN)
Updated November 5, 2007
Linda Levine
Specialist in Labor Economics
Domestic Social Policy Division

---

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN)
Summary
Congress has passed legislation to facilitate the reemployment of workers who
through no fault of their own are let go by their employers. Among these laws is the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, P.L. 100-379, enacted
in 1988. It requires advance notice of mass layoffs and plant closings.
Congressional interest in the WARN Act has renewed in the current decade due
in part to growth in offshore outsourcing and perceived shortcomings of the statute.
S. 1792, H.R. 3662 and H.R. 3796 would amend the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act to require more businesses to provide notice to more
workers, lengthen the notice period to 90 days, increase the back pay penalty for
violation of the law, and expand those to whom notice must be given (e.g., Secretary
of Labor and U.S. Senators and Representatives). On October 31, 2007, the House
passed H.R. 3920, which reauthorizes the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs for
workers and firms and amends the WARN Act. Changes made by H.R. 3920 to the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act are similar in several respects
to those made by H.R. 3796, such as authorizing the Secretary of Labor to investigate
and attempt to resolve complaints of violations of the act and counting part-time
employees (defined by the act to include persons employed less than six months)
toward the employer size threshold.
The WARN Act now requires employers to provide written notice to displaced
workers or their representatives, state dislocated worker units or entities designated
by the state to carry out rapid response activities, and the chief elected official of a
unit of local government at least 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff is
expected to occur. Shorter notice may be provided in three instances. A number of
other exceptions to and exemptions from the notification requirement exist.
Relatively small businesses and small temporary layoffs are not subject to the
WARN Act. Firms with 100 or more employees, excluding part-time employees,
generally must provide advance notice if a mass layoff is expected to exceed six
months. A mass layoff is an employment loss at a job site within any 30-day period
affecting (a) 50-499 employees (excluding part-timers) if they make up at least one-
third of an employer’s workforce (excluding part-timers), or (b) at least 500
employees (excluding part-time employees). A plant closing is a shutdown of a work
site that produces job losses for at least 50 employees (other than part-timers) within
any 30-day period. (Part-time employees are entitled to notice.)
Employees, their representatives, or units of local government can bring civil
actions against employers thought to have violated the act. DOL does not have any
investigative or enforcement authority. The maximum liability of employers is back
pay and benefits for each day that notice was not provided, although the amount of
the penalty may be reduced.
This report will be updated as legislative activity occurs.

---

Contents
Legislative Activity: Past and Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Summary of the WARN Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Length and Intent of the Act’s Advance Notice Requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Whom Does the Act Cover? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Part-Time Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Employees Not Entitled to Notice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Closings and Layoffs to Which the Act Applies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Exceptions to or Exemptions from P.L. 100-379 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Transfers or Reassignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Sale of a Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Strikes and Lockouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Enforcement and Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Appendix: Layoffs Due to the September 11 Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
List of Tables
Table A-1. Extended Mass Layoffs and Worker Separations Directly
or Indirectly Related to the September 11 Attacks, by Time Elapsed . . . . . . 8
Table A-2. Extended Mass Layoff Events and Worker Separations for
the Weeks Ending September 15, 2001-January 12, 2002, Directly
or Indirectly Attributed to the September 11 Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN)
The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act is one of the
pieces of legislation that Congress has passed to facilitate the reemployment of
workers who through no fault of their own lose their jobs. Other statutes include the
Workforce Investment Act, which provides a variety of reemployment services to
dislocated workers (e.g., training), and the Trade Adjustment Assistance program for
workers, which provides reemployment services among other assistance to a subset
of job losers (i.e., those harmed by trade).
Although “retraining” appears in its title, the WARN Act does not authorize
training. It instead requires employers that intend to carry out plant closings or large-
scale long-lasting layoffs to provide advance notice to enable affected workers to
more quickly find new jobs.
Legislative Activity: Past and Present

Legislation was first introduced at the federal level in 1973 to require advance
notice of plant closings and mass layoffs.1 The issue proved to be contentious and
more than a decade elapsed before Congress enacted the WARN Act (P.L. 100-379)
in 1988 without President Reagan’s signature.2 The law became effective in
February 1989. It generated fairly little interest during a period marked by a brief
mild recession at the outset of the 1990s and then by the longest economic expansion
in the nation’s history (120 months).
Interest has renewed in the WARN Act during the current decade for a variety
of reasons. The frequency and size of layoffs increased markedly during the latest
(March-November 2001) recession and after the terrorist attacks of September 11,
2001.3 A few years later, policymakers grappling with the issue of offshore
1 The Trade Act of 1974 (Title II, Section 283 of P.L. 93-618) asked firms that planned to
move operations outside the United States to provide at least 60 days advance notice to
employees likely to be adversely affected by their actions as well as to the Secretaries of
Labor and Commerce.
2 For more information see U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and
Labor, Legislative History of S. 2527, 100th Congress, Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act, Public Law 100-379, 100th Cong., 2nd sess., serial no. 101-K (Washington:
GPO, 1990).
3 For information on mass layoffs related specifically to September 11, see the Appendix
of this report. For additional information on mass layoff activity, see CRS Report RL30799,
(continued...)

---

CRS-2
outsourcing or offshoring of U.S. jobs to other countries introduced legislation to
amend the statute.4 S. 2090, which was introduced in 2004, would have included
under the law employer actions that had the effect of creating, shifting, or transferring
positions or facilities outside the United States and in so doing cause a job loss for
at least 15 employees during any 30-day period. In addition, the bill would have
lengthened the notification period and lowered the firm-size threshold for mass
layoffs. It also would have required the Secretary of Labor to issue statistical reports
based on the written notices of plant closings, mass layoffs, and offshoring that
covered employers would have had to provide the Secretary. (Under current law,
employers do not provide notices to the federal government.)
Three bills to amend the WARN Act have been introduced to date in the 110th
Congress. S. 1792, H.R. 3662, and H.R. 3796 have several common features
intended to address perceived shortcomings of the law, which has not been
substantively amended since its inception some 20 years ago.5 The bills would revise
the law to require more firms to provide notice to more workers terminated en masse
(e.g., by lowering the size threshold for employer coverage under the act to 50
employees excluding part-timers in the case of S. 1792 and H.R. 3662; retaining the
firm-size threshold of 100 employees but including part-timers in the case of H.R.
3796; covering plant closings of at least 25 employees, excluding part-timers, under
S. 1792 and H.R. 3662, and of at least 25 employees, including part-timers, in the
case of H.R. 3796). The bills also would lengthen the notice period to 90 days before
the event, increase the back pay penalty for violation of the statute, and authorize the
Secretary of Labor to bring civil action on behalf of workers. While S. 1792 would
require employers to notify the Secretary of Labor after a covered event had occurred,
H.R. 3662 and H.R. 3796 would require notice be given in advance of a covered
plant closing or mass layoff to the Secretary of Labor and to U.S. Senators and
Representatives in the areas in which plants are located. H.R. 3662 would require
advance notice be provided to appropriate state senators, representatives, and
governors as well. On October 18, 2007, the House Committee on Education and
Labor marked up and ordered to be reported H.R. 3796 (amended).
On October 31, 2007, the House passed H.R. 3920, which reauthorizes the
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) programs for workers and firms and amends the
WARN Act. Changes made by H.R. 3920 to the advance notice statute are similar
in many respects to those made by H.R. 3796 (e.g., provide 90-day advance notice,
increase back pay penalty, authorize the Secretary of Labor to investigate and attempt
to resolve complaints of violations of the act, count part-time employees (defined by
the act to include persons employed less than six months) toward the employer size
threshold, and have employers notify the Secretary of Labor who in turn notifies the
3 (...continued)
Unemployment Through Layoffs: What Are The Reasons?, by Linda Levine.
4 For information on offshoring, see CRS Report RL32292, Offshoring (a.k.a. Offshore
Outsourcing) and Job Insecurity among U.S. Workers, by Linda Levine.
5 For information on the act’s perceived shortcomings, see U.S. Government Accountability
Office, The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act: Revising the Act and
Educational Materials Could Clarify Employer Responsibilities and Employee Rights,
GAO-03-1003, September 2003.

---

CRS-3
appropriate Members of Congress). Differences between S. 3796 and the TAA bill’s
amendment of the WARN Act include H.R. 3920 defining covered plant closings and
mass layoffs as employment losses of at least 50 employees; prohibiting the rights
and remedies under the WARN Act, including the right to bring a civil action, from
being waived or lost pursuant to an agreement or settlement reached outside the act;
and exempting employers from the advance notice requirement if the closing or
layoff is directly or indirectly due to a terrorist attack on the United States.
Summary of the WARN Act
The key provisions of the act are described below and at 29 USC Chapter 23.
Additional information is available on the U.S. Department of Labor’s website:
[http://www.dol.gov/compliance/laws/comp-warn.htm].
Length and Intent of the Act’s Advance Notice Requirement
Generally, the WARN Act requires employers to provide written notice to
affected workers or their representatives at least 60 days before a plant closing or
mass layoff is expected to occur. Workers affected by a mass layoff would include
those who might be “bumped” from their jobs by more senior workers whose
positions had been eliminated.
State dislocated worker units or entities designated by the state to carry out rapid
response activities must be forewarned as well so they may provide assistance under
the Workforce Investment Act for example. The chief elected official of a unit of
local government also must receive notice 60 days before a plant closing or mass
layoff is initiated. (See the box, “Three Reasons for a Notice Period of Less Than 60
Days,” for the three instances in which the advance notice period can be of shorter
duration.)
The WARN Act does not supersede collective bargaining agreements or other
laws whose terms concerning advance notice or related employee rights are superior
to those of the statute (e.g., the provision of severance payments). If a state plant
closing law requires employers to provide more than 60 days advance notice, the
federal law’s notice period runs concurrently with the state’s requirement.
P.L. 100-379’s advance notice period is intended to afford employees time to
find other jobs, obtain retraining or otherwise adjust to their soon-to-be-changed
employment situation. As opposed to the termination of a few employees, large
numbers of workers released into a local labor market at approximately the same time
would produce keen competition for job vacancies. The job-seeking efforts of
displaced workers could be particularly difficult if they are released from a declining
industry in which nearby firms producing similar goods or services can offer few
employment opportunities. Similarly, a geographic area with a shrinking or stagnant
job base could have much more trouble absorbing many workers laid off at once as
opposed to a few employees let go from time to time.

---

CRS-4
Three Reasons for a Notice Period of Less Than 60 Days
The faltering company exception: Employers can provide reduced notice for plant
closings but not for mass layoffs, if they had been seeking financing or business
for their faltering enterprises, thought they had a realistic chance of obtaining
funds or new business sufficient to allow the facilities to remain open, and
believed in good faith that giving notice would have prevented them from getting
the capital or business necessary to continue their operations.
The unforeseeable business circumstances exception: Employers can provide
reduced notice if they could not reasonably foresee the business circumstances that
provoked the plant closings or mass layoffs. Dire circumstances that occurred
without warning and that were outside the employer’s control could include (1) a
major client terminating a large contract with the employer, (2) a strike at a
supplier of key parts to the employer or (3) the swift onset of a deep economic
downturn or a non-natural disaster (e.g., a terrorist attack).
The natural disaster exception: The occurrence of floods, earthquakes, droughts,
storms, and similar effects of nature fulfill this exception to the 60-day advance
notice requirement for plant closings or mass layoffs. If closings or layoffs are
indirectly due to natural disasters, the exception would not apply; however, the
unforeseen business circumstances exception might.
Whom Does the Act Cover?
Relatively small employers are not subject to the WARN Act. Private for-profit
and non-profit employers with 100 or more employees (excluding part-time
employees or the hourly equivalent6) must provide notice of impending plant closings
or mass layoffs. Neither federal, state, nor local governments are covered by P.L.
100-379, but public and quasi-public entities that engage in business and that
function independently of those governments are covered if they meet the employer-
size threshold.
Workers covered by the statute include hourly and salaried employees,
managers, and supervisors on the employer’s payroll. Persons who are temporarily
laid off or are on leave but have a reasonable expectation of being recalled also are
covered and counted toward the employer-size threshold. The law does not apply to
an employer’s business partners, contract employees who have an employment
relationship with and are paid by another employer, and self-employed individuals.
Part-Time Employees. Part-time employees are defined as persons who on
average work under 20 hours per week or who have been employed fewer than six
of the 12 months preceding the date on which notice is required. Part-timers thus
include recently hired employees working full-time hours and seasonal (part-year)
6 At least 100 full-time and part-time employees who in the aggregate work at least 4,000
hours per week exclusive of overtime hours (i.e., 4,000 hours/100 employees = 40 hours per
week on average).

---

CRS-5
workers. Although part-time employees are not counted toward the threshold for
determining employer coverage under the law, they nonetheless are due advance
notice from covered employers.
Employees Not Entitled to Notice. Workers who are counted toward the
firm-size threshold but are not entitled to advance notice include U.S. workers who
are located at an employer’s facility in a foreign country and individuals who are
clearly told upon being hired that their employment would be temporary (e.g., limited
to the time it takes to complete a specific project). For information on other
exemptions see the section in this report entitled “Exceptions to or Exemptions from
P.L. 100-379.”
Closings and Layoffs to Which the Act Applies
A plant closing is defined as a permanent or temporary shutdown of one or more
distinct sites of employment (e.g., an auto plant) or facilities or operating units within
a single site (e.g., a photocopying department) that produces an “employment loss”
for at least 50 employees, other than part-timers, at the site within any 30-day period.
An action is considered a plant closing if it effectively stops the work of a unit within
the site, although a few employees may remain in the facility.
A mass layoff is defined as an “employment loss” — regardless of whether any
units are shut down — at a single site within any 30-day period for
! 50-499 employees (excluding part-timers) if they make up at least
33% of an employer’s active workforce (excluding part-timers),7 or
! at least 500 employees (excluding part-timers).
P.L. 100-379 thus does not cover small layoffs.
An employer may have to provide advance notice if multiple groups of workers
are laid off over time but each group is smaller during any 30-day period than the
employee-size thresholds. If taken together the number of terminated workers
exceeds one of the thresholds during any 90-day period, the action is considered a
plant closing or mass layoff unless the employer proves that the employment losses
are due to “separate and distinct actions and causes and are not an attempt by the
employer to evade the requirements of” the act.
In order for the above-described plant closings or mass layoffs to trigger the
advance notice requirement, the employment loss must involve
! a termination other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure,
or retirement,
! a layoff exceeding six months, or
7 Actively working employees are persons currently on the employer’s payroll and in pay
status at the time of the mass layoff.

---

CRS-6
! a more than 50% reduction in the work hours (excluding overtime
hours) of individual employees during each month of any six-month
period.
If an employer calls a layoff that is not expected to meet the statute’s six-month
threshold for providing advance notice and the employer subsequently extends the
layoff beyond six months, an employment loss will have occurred unless the
extension was due to “business circumstances not reasonably foreseeable at the time
of the initial layoff.” The employer must give employees advance notice when it
becomes foreseeable that an extension of a short-term layoff is necessary. As in the
case of multiple layoffs of small groups of employees, this provision is intended to
prevent employers from evading the act’s notice requirement by prolonging a layoff
that initially was too brief to meet the law’s definition of employment loss.
Exceptions to or Exemptions from P.L. 100-379
The WARN Act contains several exceptions to or exemptions from its
requirement that employers provide affected parties with 60 days notice of an
impending mass layoff or plant closing. For example, the legislation specifies three
instances in which a shorter period of notice is allowed (see box above). The
exemption from the notice requirement of workers employed at temporary facilities
or on temporary projects was mentioned previously in the discussion about who is
counted toward the act’s employer-size threshold. Three other cases are taken up
below.
Transfers or Reassignments. The extent of employment loss can be
reduced — and hence, the need to provide notice can be minimized — under certain
circumstances. If a closing or layoff takes place due to the relocation or
consolidation of all or part of an employer’s business it is not considered an
employment loss if before the action:
(1) the employer offers to transfer an employee to another site within
reasonable commuting distance and no more than a six-month break
in employment occurs (regardless of whether the employee accepts
or rejects the offer), or
(2) the employee accepts a transfer to another site — regardless of
distance — with no more than a six-month break in employment,
within 30 days of the employer’s offer or of the closing/layoff,
whichever is later.
Sale of a Business. The sale of all or part of a business does not in itself
produce an employment loss because individuals who were employees of the seller
through the sale’s effective date are thereafter considered employees of the buyer.
If a covered plant closing or mass layoff takes place up to and including the effective
date of the sale, it is the responsibility of the seller to provide notice. If the seller
knows the buyer has definite plans to initiate a covered plant closing or mass layoff
within 60 days of the purchase, the seller may give notice to affected employees as
an agent of the buyer if so empowered by the buyer. If not, the buyer becomes
responsible for providing the requisite advance notice.

---

CRS-7
Strikes and Lockouts. Plant closings or mass layoffs that are the result of
a strike or lockout are exempt from the notice requirement unless employers lockout
employees to evade compliance with the act. “Economic strikers” whom employers
permanently replace do not count toward the employee-size thresholds necessary to
trigger the notice requirement.8 Non-striking employees who experience an
employment loss directly or indirectly associated with a strike and employees who
are not members of the bargaining unit involved in the contract negotiations that
prompted a lockout are entitled to advance notice.
Enforcement and Penalties
Employees, their representatives or units of local government can bring civil
actions in federal district court against employers thought to have violated the
WARN Act. A court does not have the authority to stop a plant closing or mass
layoff.
The U.S. Department of Labor does not have any investigative or enforcement
authority under the law. It is authorized to write regulations and to provide assistance
understanding them.
Employers who violate P.L. 100-379 are liable for back pay and benefits (e.g.,
the cost of medical expenses that would have been covered had the employment loss
not occurred) to each aggrieved employee. The penalty is calculated for each
working day that notice was not provided up to a maximum of 60 days. In other
words, the 60-day liability is reduced for each day that notice was provided.
Maximum liability may be less than 60 days for those employees who had worked
for the employer less than 120 days.
If any employer made “voluntary and unconditional payments” to terminated
employees for failure to provide timely notice, the amount of the penalty may be
reduced.9 A court also may decrease the back-pay liability if an employer’s failure
to comply with the act was in “good faith” with “reasonable grounds for believing”
that its closure or layoff action did not violate the law. In addition, a court may
reduce the $500 a day civil fine to which a unit of local government is entitled for an
employer’s violation of the statute. An employer can avoid the civil penalty entirely
if each aggrieved employee is paid the full amount owed within three weeks from the
date of the plant closing or mass layoff.
8 Economic strikers are those employees who go on strike over wages, hours, or other
working conditions during contract negotiations.
9 In contrast, severance payments that the employer was legally obligated to make because
of the employment loss do not diminish the employer’s liability. Similarly, payments made
by third parties to terminated employees (e.g., unemployment insurance benefits) do not
limit the size of the employer’s penalty.

---

CRS-8
Appendix: Layoffs Due to the September 11 Attacks
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) collects data on mass layoffs and
extended mass layoffs. A mass layoff is defined as an event involving at least 50
workers from a single establishment who file initial claims for unemployment
insurance (UI) benefits during a consecutive five-week period. Although mass layoff
data are released monthly, limited information is collected on these potentially brief
events. The BLS subsequently obtains additional data — including the reason that
prompted the action — for those mass layoffs that last longer than 30 days. The
detailed information on extended mass layoffs is released on a quarterly basis.
To develop a statistical portrait of the impact on layoff activity of the September
11 terrorist attacks, the BLS began asking employers whether their decision to call
a layoff was directly or indirectly prompted by the events of that day. In the interest
of timeliness, these results were released each month. Although the series does not
cover employees let go individually or in small groups or who were just briefly laid
off, it was the only federal statistical program that tracked worker displacement
linked to the terrorist actions of September 2001.
For the 18-week period between mid-September 2001 and mid-January 2002,
employers reported that they called 430 extended mass layoffs that were directly or
indirectly attributable to the attacks. The actions involved 125,637 employees. As
shown in Table A-1, the number of layoffs and workers displaced generally trended
downward as time elapsed since the terrorists’ actions.
Table A-1. Extended Mass Layoffs and
Worker Separations Directly or Indirectly Related to
the September 11 Attacks, by Time Elapsed
Number of
Number of
Weeks Ending
Layoff Events
Separated Workers
September 15-October 13, 2001
283
87,257
October 20-November 17, 2001
96
24,345
November 24-December 15, 2001
23
2,574
December 22, 2001-January 12, 2002
28
11,461
Total
430
125,637
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Mass Layoff Statistics series.
Although employers in 33 states said they released at least 50 employees for
longer than 30 days as a direct or indirect result of the attacks, 72% of the layoffs and
63% of the worker separations took place in fairly few states. (See Table A-2.) The
seven states were California (98 layoffs and 23,516 workers), Florida (56 layoffs and
6,896 workers), Hawaii (25 layoffs and 3,495 workers), Illinois (21 layoffs and
11,320 workers), Nevada (42 layoffs and 14,943 workers), New York (47 layoffs and
10,765 workers), and Texas (21 layoffs and 8,839 workers).

---

CRS-9
Most extended mass layoffs due to the terrorist attacks were concentrated in two
industry groups: (1) accommodation and foods services and (2) transportation and
warehousing. Together they accounted for 268 (or 62%) of the large, long-lasting
terrorist-related layoffs and 92,224 (or 73%) of the employees displaced by those
events. In particular, 100 (or 23%) of the layoffs took place at hotels and motels,
excluding casino hotels, within the broader accommodation and food services
industry group. Non-casino hotels/motels let go 18,703 employees in the actions, or
15% of all separated workers. Another 37 layoffs (or 9% of the total) were at casino
hotels, and 14,100 workers (or 11% of all separated workers) were let go in the
actions. The 30 remaining layoffs in the accommodation and food services industry
group (or 7% of all layoffs) that led to the termination of 7,544 workers (or 6% of all
separated employees) involved such firms as restaurants, cafeterias, fast-food
establishments, and caterers that felt the effect of reduced tourism brought about by
travelers’ fears over the events of September 11, 2001. Thus, the accommodation
and food services industry group as a whole experienced 39% of all large, long-
lasting layoffs (167 events) directly or indirectly connected with the terrorist actions
and released 32% (40,347) of all separated workers. In comparison, the scheduled
air transportation industry called many fewer actions (69 or 16% of the terrorist-
related layoffs), but it terminated a somewhat larger number of employees (44,861
or 36% of the total). The other 32 extended mass layoffs in the transportation and
warehousing industry group (or 7% of the total) likely involved nonscheduled air
carriers and sightseeing or charter bus operators. An additional 7,016 workers were
displaced by these employers (or 6% of all separated workers). The entire
transportation and warehousing industry group thus accounted for 101 (or 23%) of
the terrorist-related layoffs and 51,877 (or 41%) of all separated workers.

---

CRS-10
Table A-2. Extended Mass Layoff Events
and Worker Separations for the Weeks Ending
September 15, 2001-January 12, 2002, Directly or Indirectly
Attributed to the September 11 Attacks
Number of
Number of
State
Layoff Events
Separated Workers
Total
430
125,637
Arizona
5
505
California
98
23,516
Colorado
5
1,624
Connecticut
4
726
Florida
56
6,896
Georgia
5
4,141
Hawaii
25
3,495
Illinois
21
11,320
Indiana
a
a
Iowa
a
a
Kansas
a
a
Kentucky
3
268
Louisiana
8
1,888
Maine
a
a
Maryland
5
1,579
Massachusetts
14
3,679
Michigan
a
a
Minnesota
5
5,979
Missouri
a
a
Nevada
42
14,943
New Jersey
9
1,660
New York
47
10,765
North Carolina
8
5,318
North Dakota
a
a
Ohio
5
711
Oklahoma
4
367
Oregon
a
a
Pennsylvania
4
962
Tennessee
6
1,256
Texas
21
8,839
Utah
4
870
Virginia
6
1,584
Washington
8
7,225
Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Unpublished data from the Mass Layoff Statistics series.
a. Although extended mass layoffs attributable, directly or indirectly, to the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks occurred in these states, the actions were too few in number to meet BLS or
state agency disclosure standards (i.e., fewer than three events).
crsphpgw

---