WARN Notices

WARN mass-layoff notices

State WARN agencies · per-state filings · dates and counts as filed

Federal WARN requires 60 days' advance notice; statutory exceptions can shorten or excuse notice. This site publishes notices as filed and does not judge compliance.

284 notices covering 36,878 workers on noticed layoffs in UT. A WARN notice is an employer's advance filing of a mass layoff or plant closure: projected dates and counts, recorded as filed, not a verified outcome. These state records are matched employer by employer to H-1B filings.

Data current as of Nov 6, 2026

Source: State Departments of Labor · per-state WARN notice filings · Refreshed Nov 6, 2026

Several states do not publish WARN notices in a form we ingest; the current missing-state list is maintained on the data-sources page.

Methodology

What the records contain / UT

284Noticesevery filed notice in scope, dated or not36,878Workers on noticed layoffssum of filed counts, as filed49Jurisdiction valuesas filed · filter above carries counts

284 of 284 notices resolved to an employer recordthe employer dossier links cover that subset284 carry no effective datelisted and counted; outside the annual history0 carry a future dateprojected by the employer, as filed

Coverage & date notesabsent jurisdictions, date quality, missing counts

5 jurisdictions with WARN obligations have no notices in the archive: AR, NV, NH, WV, WY. They hold about 14.9% of U.S. payroll jobs (BLS OES; warehouse-computed). A missing state does not mean no layoff happened.

284 notices carry no effective date; agencies publish some notices without one. They stay in the list and totals and sit outside the annual history. 1 notices carry no worker count; they count as notices only.

Jurisdiction values render exactly as filed, including non-state codes such as KN and N/A (no state on record). Every notice links to its source publication on the record page.

Browse notices

284 match the current filters (UT)

RecordState WARN agencies · effective dates as filed; notice dates are labeled when the effective date is absent

Jurisdiction

Employer (as filed)	Workers laid off	Date
Point DesignsBountiful, UTEmployer record	8	Notice date: 2026-10-30
Domo Inc.American Fork, UTEmployer record	175	Notice date: 2026-09-23
Tyson Fresh MeatsEagle Mountain, UTEmployer record	723	Notice date: 2026-08-13
Provo Canyon SchoolProvo and Springville, UTEmployer record	303	Notice date: 2026-07-09
Notions MarketingLindon, UTEmployer record	3	Notice date: 2026-07-06
Milestone Technologies Inc.Eagle Mountain, UTEmployer record	50	Notice date: 2026-04-29
Bright Planet Solar, Inc.Provo, UTEmployer record	60	Notice date: 2026-04-24
ProFrac Services, LLCVernal, UTEmployer record	157	Notice date: 2026-03-27

Sorted by effective date. 0 notices in scope carry a future effective date: employers file projected layoff dates, and the archive records them as filed with a projected marker.

Annual history

0 of 284 notices · UT · all employers

Workers on noticed layoffs by effective year · 1988 through 2026

No dated notices in scope for this selection, so no annual history renders.

Where WARN meets H-1B

Where a layoff employer then filed H-1B petitions in the same window, the pair is recorded as a displacement event with an evidence score. Timing overlap is a review signal: it does not establish that a noticed worker was replaced. The enforcement hub collects the related case ledgers.

Questions about the data & methods

WARN FAQ

What is a WARN notice?

A WARN notice is a mass-layoff or plant-closure notice an employer files with a state agency under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. It tells workers and the state about a large layoff or closure in advance.

Why do some notices show a future effective date?

Employers file projected layoff dates, sometimes years ahead, and the archive records them as filed. A future date is a filed plan, not a completed layoff; the row carries a projected marker in the list.

Why is my state missing from the jurisdiction filter?

Several jurisdictions do not publish WARN notices in a form this archive ingests, so they have no filter chip. A missing state does not mean no layoff happened; the coverage notes on this page name the absent jurisdictions.

Why do WARN notices matter for H-1B?

A WARN layoff at an employer that also files H-1B labor applications shows a pattern worth examining: an employer laying off U.S. workers while hiring or renewing H-1B workers in the same area. This archive links notices to employers' H-1B filing history.

Is every layoff covered by WARN?

No. WARN only covers employers of a certain size and layoffs above a threshold, and the rules vary by state. A missing WARN notice does not mean no layoff happened.

Does a late or missing notice mean an employer broke the law?

Not on this site. Federal WARN requires 60 days' advance notice; statutory exceptions can shorten or excuse notice. This site publishes notices as filed and does not judge compliance.

Public source records and site analysis. We do not attest to accuracy. Read the full disclaimer.

Dataset guides and site methods

[1] XH1B method or registry · XH1B. WARN Notices (mass layoffs): source registry. Source registry entry: warnXH1B dataset description: One row per source_notice_id. The definition of a mass layoff and the layoff threshold vary by state. The threshold is typically 50 or more employees.
[2] Dataset documentation · DOL OFLC. LCA public disclosure record layout (FY2026 Q3). Pages 1–4: application, DOL outcome and dates, requested positions, employer, representatives, worksites and pay unitsThis layout covers determinations issued October 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026. It documents employer-provided application fields and DOL decisions, not USCIS decisions, payroll verification, legal bills or worker-linked moves. Older layouts can differ.Checked 2026-10-17.
[3] XH1B method or registry · XH1B. Displacement Model and Assumptions. Eligibility, requested-position weighting, scopes, WARN matching, and counting limitsModel outputs are estimates. A matched layoff notice does not prove that an H-1B worker replaced a laid-off worker.