Ask most people in Minnesota what an employer has to do before it shuts a plant and you’ll hear the same answer: give everybody sixty days’ notice. It’s the law.
It’s a law. It isn’t Minnesota’s. The sixty days come from a federal statute, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and it reaches only employers big enough to clear its thresholds and layoffs big enough to clear a second set. Minnesota’s own statute on plant closings doesn’t require anybody to give notice of anything. It tells the commissioner of employment and economic development to encourage employers to give it. There’s no penalty for ignoring the encouragement. I went through all of chapter 116L looking for one.
Minnesota’s statute, in full
The whole notice provision is one paragraph:
(a) The commissioner shall encourage those business establishments considering a decision to effect a plant closing, substantial layoff, or relocation of operations located in this state to give notice of that decision as early as possible to the commissioner, the employees of the affected establishment, any employee organization representing the employees, and the local government unit in which the affected establishment is located. This notice shall be in addition to any notice required under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, United States Code, title 29, section 2101.
— Minn. Stat. § 116L.976, subd. 1(a) (emphasis added)
The “commissioner” is the commissioner of employment and economic development, the head of DEED. Minn. Stat. § 116L.19, subd. 2. The duty in that paragraph runs to the commissioner, not the employer. The employer’s only job is to be encouraged.
There’s a second subdivision, and it does use the word “must”. An employer giving notice of a plant closing, substantial layoff, or relocation under the federal Act, “or under subdivision 1 must report to the commissioner the names, addresses, and occupations of the employees who will be or have been terminated.” § 116L.976, subd. 2. Read the trigger. The reporting duty kicks in only for an employer that’s already giving notice. An employer that gives none owes no report. And chapter 116L attaches no fine, no penalty, and no private lawsuit to either subdivision. The only “liable” in the whole chapter is the employer’s tax for the workforce development fund, which I’ll get to.
The definitions are a small mess. Section 116L.976 defines “plant closing” for itself: a “permanent or temporary shutdown” of a single site that causes an employment loss during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees, not counting people who work under 20 hours a week. § 116L.976, subd. 1(b). Back in § 116L.17, the dislocated worker statute defines the same phrase as a “permanent shutdown”, with no number at all. § 116L.17, subd. 1(e). That definition, by its own terms, applies only “[f]or the purposes of this section”. § 116L.17, subd. 1(a). “Substantial layoff” is defined there too (a permanent reduction that hits at least 50 employees at a single site in any 30-day period, § 116L.17, subd. 1(f)), but not in § 116L.976. And “relocation of operations” isn’t defined anywhere. None of that matters much, since a statute that asks nicely doesn’t need tight definitions to work as designed.
The section’s history line starts in 1989, the year the federal Act took effect. Minnesota has had thirty-seven years to give it teeth.
Congress, for what it’s worth, wrote the same polite request into the federal Act. For employers too small to be covered: “It is the sense of Congress that an employer who is not required to comply with the notice requirements of section 2102 of this title should, to the extent possible, provide notice to its employees about a proposal to close a plant or permanently reduce its workforce.” 29 U.S.C. § 2106. Two governments, same idea. Please.
Who actually owes you sixty days’ notice?
The federal rule is real, and it’s specific:
An employer shall not order a plant closing or mass layoff until the end of a 60-day period after the employer serves written notice of such an order—
— 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a)
The notice goes to the union, or to each affected employee if there’s no union, and to the state’s rapid response unit and the chief elected official of the local government. § 2102(a)(1)–(2). In Minnesota, the DEED commissioner is responsible for implementing rapid response, together with local workforce councils. Minn. Stat. § 116L.17, subd. 10.
Now the three gates, and you have to clear all of them.
The employer. An “employer” is a business enterprise that employs “100 or more employees, excluding part-time employees” or “100 or more employees who in the aggregate work at least 4,000 hours per week (exclusive of hours of overtime)”. 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(1). A “part-time employee” is one who averages “fewer than 20 hours per week” or has worked “fewer than 6 of the 12 months preceding the date on which notice is required.” § 2101(a)(8). So the guy who started in June doesn’t count toward the 100 in October. The Labor Department’s regulation adds that nonprofits of the requisite size are employers, and regular federal, state, local, and tribal governments aren’t. 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(1).
The event. A “plant closing” is a shutdown of a single site, or one or more facilities or operating units within it, that causes an employment loss “during any 30-day period for 50 or more employees excluding any part-time employees”. § 2101(a)(2). A “mass layoff” is everything else that’s big enough: an employment loss at a single site during any 30-day period for at least 33 percent of the full-time workforce and at least 50 people, or for at least 500 people no matter the percentage. § 2101(a)(3). Run the numbers on a 200-person plant. Lay off 60, and that’s 30 percent. No mass layoff. Lay off 66, and you’re over the line.
The loss. An “employment loss” means a termination “other than a discharge for cause, voluntary departure, or retirement,” a layoff exceeding six months, or a cut in hours of more than 50 percent during each month of any six-month period. § 2101(a)(6).
And the employer can’t slice its way under the thresholds. Two or more groups of layoffs at a single site, each too small to count, that together exceed the minimum and “occur within any 90-day period” are treated as a plant closing or mass layoff, “unless the employer demonstrates that the employment losses are the result of separate and distinct actions and causes and are not an attempt by the employer to evade the requirements of this chapter.” § 2102(d). Notice who carries that burden.
What about remote workers? The regulation, published April 20, 1989 and still carrying that date as its only source note, never uses the word. The closest it comes is the rule for workers who travel, are “outstationed,” or work outside the employer’s regular sites: their single site is the one “to which they are assigned as their home base, from which their work is assigned, or to which they report”. 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(i)(6). Nothing in the employer definition excludes a full-time remote employee, so I read one to count toward the 100. Which site the layoff counts against, under a 1989 rule whose examples are railroad workers, bus drivers, and salespersons, is a fair fight.
Three exits, one of them thirty-eight years stale
The Act lets an employer give less than sixty days in three situations. § 2102(b).
The first is the faltering company: an employer “actively seeking capital or business” that, if obtained, would have let it avoid or postpone the shutdown, and that “reasonably and in good faith believed” giving notice would have killed the deal. § 2102(b)(1). The statute writes this one for “the shutdown of a single site of employment”, and the regulation spells out the consequence: it “applies to plant closings but not to mass layoffs and should be narrowly construed.” 20 C.F.R. § 639.9(a).
The second is unforeseeable business circumstances. § 2102(b)(2)(A).
The third is natural disaster, and Congress wrote it in August 1988 with a specific example in mind: “No notice under this chapter shall be required if the plant closing or mass layoff is due to any form of natural disaster, such as a flood, earthquake, or the drought currently ravaging the farmlands of the United States.” § 2102(b)(2)(B). That drought is still “currently ravaging” in the 2024 edition of the U.S. Code. Nobody’s gotten around to it.
Whichever exit an employer takes, it still has to “give as much notice as is practicable” and a brief statement of why the notice was short. § 2102(b)(3). And the employer “bears the burden of proof that conditions for the exceptions have been met.” 20 C.F.R. § 639.9.
An Eighth Circuit case on the unforeseeable-circumstances exit happened in Keewatin, Minnesota. U.S. Steel idled its Keetac iron ore plant in December 2008 and laid off 313 union workers between December 7 and 21. The WARN notice went out December 3. United Steel Workers of Am. Local 2660 v. U.S. Steel Corp., 683 F.3d 882, 884 (8th Cir. 2012). The union’s argument was simple: the financial crisis started well before October 8, sixty days out. Everybody knew.
The court agreed everybody knew, and held it didn’t matter. “Knowledge of an economic downturn alone, however, does not bar application of the unforeseeable business circumstances exception.” Id. at 887. The question was when it became foreseeable that the downturn would hit U.S. Steel that hard, and on that record it was late November, when the company’s blast-furnace utilization had fallen from 92 percent in July to 46 percent. Id. at 884–85, 887–88. The company had been trying less drastic fixes first, and the court quoted the Seventh Circuit: “the WARN Act is not intended to deter companies from fighting to stay afloat.” Id. at 888. A Thanksgiving weekend to plan and two business days to approve was as much notice as was practicable. Id. at 889.
That’s how the exception works in practice. It doesn’t ask whether the bad news was out there. It asks when a reasonable company in that market would have seen it coming for itself.
Sold, not closed
When a business is sold, the Act splits the duty. The seller gives any required notice “up to and including the effective date of the sale”, the buyer is responsible after, and every employee of the seller on the effective date “shall be considered an employee of the purchaser immediately after the effective date of the sale.” 29 U.S.C. § 2101(b)(1).
The Eighth Circuit read that to protect a seller that fired its whole workforce on closing day. Airtherm Products sold its Arkansas plant as a going concern on August 25, 2000, terminated its employees that same day, and the buyer began taking applications on August 28. The district court awarded the workers $515,661.92. The Eighth Circuit reversed: in a going-concern sale, “the sale-of-business exclusion creates a presumption that the buyer is the employer for WARN Act purposes if the seller still employs its employees on the day of the sale.” Wilson v. Airtherm Prods., Inc., 436 F.3d 906, 907–08, 911 (8th Cir. 2006). And quoting the Ninth Circuit, “nothing in [the] WARN [Act] requires a seller to insist upon a contract term guaranteeing its employees continued employment with the buyer.” Id. at 912.
A relocation can take you out of the count, too. You haven’t suffered an employment loss if the closing comes from a relocation or consolidation and, before it, the employer offers you a transfer within reasonable commuting distance with no more than a six-month break, or a transfer anywhere that you accept within 30 days. § 2101(b)(2).
What a violation costs
Less than people think.
An employer that orders a plant closing or mass layoff in violation of § 2102 is liable to each aggrieved employee for back pay “for each day of violation” and for benefits under an employee benefit plan, including medical expenses the plan would have covered. § 2104(a)(1)(A)–(B). Then the cap:
Such liability shall be calculated for the period of the violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, but in no event for more than one-half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer.
— 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)
Hired 80 days before the layoff? Forty days, max. And it comes down further by any wages the employer paid for the period, any “voluntary and unconditional payment” it didn’t owe, and any payments it made to a third party on the employee’s behalf, such as health premiums. § 2104(a)(2).
The local government can collect a civil penalty of up to $500 a day, but not if the employer pays each employee what it owes “within 3 weeks from the date the employer orders the shutdown or layoff.” § 2104(a)(3). An employer that proves good faith and reasonable grounds may get the liability or penalty reduced at the court’s discretion. § 2104(a)(4). The court “may” award the prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee. § 2104(a)(6). Suit can go in federal district court. § 2104(a)(5).
And here’s the part that surprises people: no court can stop the closing under WARN. “Under this chapter, a Federal court shall not have authority to enjoin a plant closing or mass layoff.” § 2104(b). The worst case for the employer is up to 60 days of pay and benefits, plus the civil penalty and any fee award. The plant still closes.
WARN doesn’t erase anything you already had. Its rights are “in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other contractual or statutory rights and remedies”, though the 60 days run concurrently with any other notice period in a contract or statute. § 2105.
The closest Minnesota came to its own WARN Act
I searched the Revisor’s full-text bill search for every session from 2019 through 2026, House and Senate, for “plant closing”, “mass layoff”, “116L.976”, “relocation of operations”, and “Worker Adjustment and Retraining”. The “plant closing” hits were omnibus jobs bills and a dislocated-worker bill, and the ones I opened were reprinting § 116L.17’s definitions. No bill in those years cited § 116L.976.
The only state notice bill I found was aimed at robots. House File 4369 and Senate File 4576, introduced in March 2026, would have required a covered employer to give “a minimum of 90 days advance written notice” before a “technological displacement”, meaning job cuts caused “in whole or in substantial part by the introduction or expanded use of an artificial intelligence system or other automated technology.” Displaced workers would get a 90-day transitional period with pay and employer-funded retraining, and violators would lose state grants, loans, and tax incentives for five years. The Senate Labor committee recommended its amended version to pass on April 7, 2026, and re-referred it to State and Local Government. The Senate’s status page shows nothing after that.
So if your employer replaces your department with software, one Minnesota Senate committee voted to make it give you 90 days’ notice. If it just closes the plant, Minnesota will encourage it to call.
What you’ve actually got when the doors close
The state’s program. The Dislocated Worker Program in § 116L.17 is what Minnesota offers instead of a notice mandate, and it’s broader than its name. A “dislocated worker” includes someone terminated “as a result of a plant closing or a substantial layoff”, but also anyone permanently separated who’s eligible for unemployment and “unlikely to return to the previous industry or occupation”. § 116L.17, subd. 1(c)(1), (3). One person laid off alone can qualify. The money can pay for job counseling, placement, relocation help, child care, emergency financial assistance, and short-term or long-term training. § 116L.17, subd. 4. Your employer pays for it whether it gave notice or not: every covered employer, other than one that reimburses the unemployment fund directly, owes a special assessment “at the rate of .10 percent per year on all taxable wages,” deposited in the workforce development fund for the purposes of § 116L.17. § 116L.20, subds. 1(a), 2(b). The state won’t make your employer warn you. It will make your employer fund your retraining.
Your health insurance. Minnesota’s continuation statute lets a terminated or laid-off employee keep group coverage for up to 18 months at no more than 102 percent of the plan’s cost, with the employer required to tell you about it within 14 days. Minn. Stat. § 62A.17, subds. 2, 5. The catch is in the first sentence: the right exists “if the policy, contract, or health care plan remains in force for active employees of the employer”. § 62A.17, subd. 1. Federal COBRA, which doesn’t apply to a plan whose employers normally employed fewer than 20 people the year before, has the same hole. Coverage can end on “[t]he date on which the employer ceases to provide any group health plan to any employee.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 1161(b), 1162(2)(B). When the whole company shuts down, the plan usually goes with it, and continuation goes with the plan.
The rest. When your last check is due and what happens if it’s late is at /news/minnesota-final-paycheck-181-13/. Whether unused PTO gets paid out, which turns on your employer’s own documents and not on any Minnesota statute, is at /news/minnesota-unused-pto-payout/. If a handbook promised severance, whether that promise binds your employer is at /news/minnesota-employee-handbook-as-contract/. If you’re offered severance in exchange for a release, read /news/minnesota-severance-release-agreements/ before you sign anything. And unemployment, including what does and doesn’t count as misconduct, is at /news/minnesota-unemployment-quit-misconduct-268-095/.
Minnesota’s plant-closing law is a thank-you note the employer doesn’t have to send. The sixty days, where they exist, are Washington’s.
Madgett Law, LLC
Madgett Law, LLC handles employment disputes for Minnesota workers, including wrongful termination and unpaid wages, along with the contract fights over severance, handbooks, and final pay that follow a layoff. Read about our general litigation practice. If your employer closed a site or cut a big group at once without notice, or handed you a release with a deadline on it, send us a message.
Sources: Minn. Stat. § 116L.976, subd. 1(a) (commissioner shall encourage notice; in addition to federal notice), subd. 1(b) (“plant closing” defined for the section), subd. 2 (report of names, addresses, and occupations by an employer providing notice); Minn. Stat. ch. 116L (2026) (searched in full for any penalty or private remedy); Minn. Stat. § 116L.17, subd. 1(a) (definitions limited to the section), subd. 1(c)(1), (3) (dislocated worker), subd. 1(e) (plant closing), subd. 1(f) (substantial layoff), subd. 4 (use of funds), subd. 10 (rapid response); Minn. Stat. § 116L.19, subds. 1–2 (commissioner defined; applies through § 116L.976); Minn. Stat. § 116L.20, subd. 1(a) (special assessment of .10 percent of taxable wages), subd. 2(b) (fund appropriated for § 116L.17); Minn. Stat. § 62A.16 (scope); Minn. Stat. § 62A.17, subd. 1 (continuation if the plan remains in force for active employees), subd. 2 (102 percent; 18 months), subd. 5 (14-day notice; 60-day election); 29 U.S.C. § 2101(a)(1) (employer), (a)(2) (plant closing), (a)(3) (mass layoff), (a)(6) (employment loss), (a)(8) (part-time employee), (b)(1) (sale of business), (b)(2) (relocation and transfer offers); 29 U.S.C. § 2102(a) (60-day written notice; recipients), (b)(1) (faltering company), (b)(2)(A) (unforeseeable business circumstances), (b)(2)(B) (natural disaster), (b)(3) (as much notice as practicable), (d) (90-day aggregation); 29 U.S.C. § 2104(a)(1)–(6) (back pay and benefits; 60-day and half-of-tenure caps; reductions; $500 civil penalty and three-week safe harbor; good-faith reduction; venue; attorney’s fee), (b) (exclusive remedies; no injunction); 29 U.S.C. § 2105 (other rights preserved; concurrent notice periods); 29 U.S.C. § 2106 (sense of Congress); 29 U.S.C. § 1161(b) (COBRA small-employer exception); 29 U.S.C. § 1162(2)(B) (end of plan) (all federal statutes from the 2024 edition of the United States Code at govinfo.gov); 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(a)(1) (employer), (i)(6) (single site for traveling and outstationed workers); 20 C.F.R. § 639.9 (employer’s burden), (a) (faltering company limited to plant closings); Minn. H.F. 4369 and S.F. 4576, 94th Leg. (2026) (S.F. 4576, 1st engrossment; Senate status page); United Steel Workers of Am. Local 2660 v. U.S. Steel Corp., 683 F.3d 882, 884–89 (8th Cir. 2012); Wilson v. Airtherm Prods., Inc., 436 F.3d 906, 907, 909–12 (8th Cir. 2006). This article is general information about Minnesota and federal law, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney–client relationship, and no outcome is promised or implied.