WARN and the Remote Workforce: A 2026 Case Law Update

PDF

In January 2024, we explained that applying the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) to remote workers was a complex and unsettled issue. As a refresher, WARN requires covered employers to give at least 60 calendar days’ written notice before a plant closing or mass layoff at a “single site of employment”—a phrase the statute does not define. A mass layoff generally means an employment loss during any 30-day period for at least 50 employees making up at least 33 percent of the workforce at that site, or for at least 500 employees.

The key question for remote workers is which “site” they belong to. A U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(i)(6), provides that workers who travel from point to point, are “outstationed,” or whose primary duties involve work outside any of the employer’s regular employment sites (e.g., railroad workers, bus drivers, salespersons) are assigned to their home base, the site from which their work is assigned, or the site to which they report. If remote employees are tied to a headquarters under this rule, their numbers can be added together and may trigger WARN. If instead each employee’s home is his or her own “site,” the 50-employee threshold will rarely, if ever, be met.

Our 2024 article noted a split among courts on whether a true telecommuter’s home is their single site of employment and whether § 639.3(i)(6) covers remote employees. That landscape has continued to evolve. Four decisions issued across the country in 2026 have added significant—though not uniform—guidance.

Hubbard v. Goldschmitt and Associates, LLC (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2026)

In March 2026, the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the WARN Act claim brought by an individual plaintiff on his behalf and on behalf of a nationwide class group of remote employees, holding that each plaintiff’s “single site of employment” was their home. In Hubbard v. Goldschmitt and Associates, LLC (E.D. Va. Mar. 18, 2026), over 200 remote employees across the country were terminated, and the plaintiff argued that – because these employees all reported to and received direction from a single Virginia location – the failure to provide notice was a violation of the WARN Act.

However, the court disagreed. Relying on Fourth Circuit precedent limiting the regulation to “truly mobile workers without a regular, fixed place of work,” the court found that the mobile worker rule “does not apply to employees who simply have alternative work locations from where they receive instruction and to which they report.” The court determined that the plaintiff had misconstrued the definition of a mobile worker under the regulation because, while the plaintiff’s primary duties involved work outside any of the employer's regular employment sites, that was simply because they worked from home. Therefore, the claim was dismissed for failure to meet the 50-employee threshold.

Dargon v. Xtend Healthcare, LLC (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2026)

Also in March 2026, the Middle District of Tennessee similarly dismissed a WARN Act claim brought on behalf of remote employees, holding that the mobile worker regulation does not apply to remote employees who do not travel for work. In Dargon v. Xtend Healthcare, LLC (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2026), the defendants operated a virtual COVID-19 vaccination call center for the State of New Jersey, staffed by hundreds of remote employees who were managed from the company’s Hendersonville, Tennessee, headquarters. After those employees were terminated beginning in February 2022 without advance written notice, the plaintiff argued that – because the remote workforce was managed from and reported to the Tennessee headquarters – that location was their single site of employment and the failure to provide notice violated the WARN Act.

The court disagreed. Following the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit, the court found that the mobile worker regulation is reserved for workers who travel as part of their duties and does not extend to remote employees who telecommute and do not otherwise travel for work. The court further analyzed the geographic proximity test and the purpose of WARN, particularly focusing on whether the resulting job loss would be concentrated in one geographic area, noting that, while not dispositive, the “absence of community impact from layoffs cuts against finding a ‘single site of employment.’” Relying on the travel requirement of the mobile worker regulation and the “geographic proximity” approach, the court reasoned that a geographically dispersed remote workforce lacks the concentrated community impact WARN was designed to address. Therefore, the federal WARN claim was dismissed with prejudice.

In re Sunnova Energy International Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2026)

In contrast, earlier in March 2026, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas expressly declined to follow Fourth Circuit precedent, holding that remote workers may fall within the mobile worker regulation. In In re Sunnova Energy International Inc. (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2026), Sunnova laid off several hundred employees who worked at, reported to, or received assignments from its Houston facility. Importantly, the plaintiffs alleged that they all received their work assignments from this single Houston facility.

Relying on the plain text of the regulation, the court found that a remote worker’s primary duties involve work outside the employer’s regular employment sites, such that the worker’s single site of employment may be the site from which work is assigned or to which the worker reports—not necessarily their home. The court also observed that remote work is ubiquitous and pervasive, a practical reality counseling against a rigid reading that would exclude all remote workers from WARN Act protection, noting that 50 remote workers all living in the same city laid off by a local employer would still represent a concentrated community impact. Nevertheless, the complaint was dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend, with directions to the plaintiffs to clarify whether they were true remote workers and where they performed their duties.

Gray v. Volato, Inc. (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2026)

Following this string of March 2026 rulings, on September 29, 2026, the Middle District of Florida granted summary judgment to an employer on a WARN Act claim brought by remote employees. In Gray v. Volato, Inc. (M.D. Fla. Sept. 29, 2026), an aviation company terminated around 200 employees who worked remotely across several states, had no assigned offices, and reported to supervisors who likewise worked remotely. The plaintiffs argued that the company’s Chamblee, Georgia, headquarters was their common single site of employment, although none of the terminated employees were assigned to or worked out of that location.

The court disagreed. Agreeing with Hubbard and Dargon, the court found that the mobile worker regulation covers only workers whose duties require travel. It further found that, even if the regulation applied, the relevant reporting or assignment location would be where day-to-day operational decisions are made, not a centralized managerial or payroll hub, and noted that each remote supervisor oversaw 47 or fewer employees, so no supervisor’s location met the 50-employee threshold. The court also rejected the argument that the regulation’s provision for “truly unusual organizational situations” could make a largely vacant headquarters the common site, reasoning that a site of employment refers to a physical location where the employee reports or performs work, not a largely vacant office where no employees work or supervise. The court determined that this reasoning aligned with the purpose of WARN: to address the effect of a mass layoff or plant closing on the specific geographic areas where terminated employees reported or performed their work, so that state and local governments can prepare for a substantial increase in unemployment.

Key Takeaways

While the majority of these most recent decisions hold that fully remote, non-traveling employees are generally counted at their homes, this is still not a settled issue nationwide, and Sunnova and earlier decisions discussed in our prior article reject this view. Therefore, employers should identify which courts’ decisions are likely to govern their workforce before relying on any rule.

Further, do not overlook state law. Several states, including but not limited to California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Iowa, have “mini” WARN Acts that have differing thresholds and requirements.

Finally, when in doubt, consider providing notice regardless. The DOL continues to encourage employers to give notice in all circumstances, even if thresholds are not met. Because these questions should be resolved while 60 days’ notice prior to any employment separation is still an option, consult counsel early when planning reductions affecting remote employees that could implicate WARN.

This update is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For questions about WARN compliance for remote workforces, please contact a member of the Maynard Nexsen Employment & Labor Law team.