1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |New Jersey’s Mini-WARN Act Amendment Expands Its Scope, Notice Period, and Adds Automatic Severance Requirements

New Jersey’s Mini-WARN Act Amendment Expands Its Scope, Notice Period, and Adds Automatic Severance Requirements

Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.06.23

On January 10, 2023 New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law a new version of New Jersey’s “mini-WARN Act,” or the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“NJ WARN Act”). The amendment makes the NJ WARN Act in some ways the most expansive WARN Act in the country: it increases the scope of covered employers, counts employee layoffs statewide (rather than by worksite) to meet the notice threshold, requires 90 days’ notice (rather than 60), and mandates severance payments even when proper notice is given. These changes will take effect on April 10, 2023.

The NJ WARN Act is one of several state “mini-WARN Acts,” which supplement the federal WARN Act applicable to private employers with 100 or more employees. Both the federal and state WARN Acts create employee notice requirements in advance of reductions in force. Even when a planned reduction in force does not trigger federal WARN Act notice requirements, employers must also be aware of state WARN Act notice thresholds, particularly now in New Jersey.

The new version of the NJ WARN Act expands the scope of the law in a number of ways, rendering it the most burdensome in the country in several ways:

  • Part-time employees now count: The thresholds for covered employers and affected employees now include part-time employees.  This means that the scope of covered employers has been expanded from those with 100 or more full-time employees to employers with 100 or more full or part-time employees.
  • Employee layoff count is now statewide: The threshold for determining whether the number of employees to be laid off triggers notice requirements is now 50 or more full or part-time employees working at or reporting to any employer location statewideeliminating a site-specific analysis.
  • 90 days’ notice required: Employers planning covered reductions in force are now required to provide affected employees with 90 days’ notice instead of 60. If an employer does not comply with the full 90-day notice requirement, the employer will be required to pay four weeks of severance in addition to the new automatic severance described below.
  • Automatic one week’s severance per year of employment: Even if a covered employer provides the requisite 90 days of notice to employees, it is also now required to pay affected employees severance equal to one week’s salary for every full year of employment.

This amendment to the NJ WARN Act was originally set to go into effect on July 20, 2020, but was repeatedly delayed due to the COVID-19 state of emergency in New Jersey. Employers should be careful to evaluate planned reductions in force in New Jersey and determine whether the revised NJ WARN Act is triggered, and if so, be sure to budget for the required severance and extended 90-day-notice period.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26

DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability

On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”...