WARN Act Layoff Rankings

How PlainLayoffs Rankings Are Compiled

Each ranking on this page is computed directly from the underlying WARN Act notice dataset, the same filings that employers are required by federal law to submit to state agencies whenever a mass layoff or plant closing affects at least 50 workers. We do not editorialize the rank order, we do not blend in proprietary signals, and we do not let advertisers influence position. Every ranked figure on every detail page is reproducible from the raw notice records, and the underlying numbers are visible on the associated detail pages so any reader can verify them. Rankings recompute automatically each time the upstream dataset refreshes; the refresh cadence is published on the methodology page.

What These Rankings Mean, and What They Do Not

A ranking by “workers affected” is the most common cut, but it is not the only useful one. A 5,000-worker layoff at a 500,000-employee company is operationally different from a 5,000-worker layoff at a 6,000-employee company. Reading a top-of-ranking entry as evidence of corporate distress can be misleading without context about overall headcount, the regional labor market, and whether the layoff is a permanent reduction or a temporary furlough that the employer expects to reverse. Similarly, a state ranking high on total notices may simply be a large state with a large workforce; we publish the raw notice counts so readers can compare to denominators that fit their question (population, total employment, prior-year baseline).

WARN Act rankings are also subject to known reporting gaps. Some states publish notices in nearly real time; others publish on a quarterly basis. Some states publish full effective-date and worker-count detail; others publish only the employer name and a brief summary. When we rank, we use only the fields that every state publishes consistently, typically employer, location, total workers affected, and effective date, so the rankings are apples-to-apples across the country. State-level detail pages flag where reporting gaps are known to exist.

Why We Publish These Rankings

Mass layoff data is one of the most timely labor-market signals available to the public, but it is scattered across more than 50 state portals, each with its own search interface, file format, and update cadence. Most workers, journalists, researchers, and policymakers who need this information have no single national view. PlainLayoffs consolidates these notices, normalizes the field structure, and publishes a national index alongside the detail pages so that comparison across employers, industries, states, and years is possible without scraping 50 different government sites.

Rankings make the consolidated dataset navigable. A reader who arrives asking “What were the biggest layoffs this year?” or “Which states are seeing the most WARN activity?” or “How does this year compare to last year?” can answer those questions in seconds. Each ranked row links to a detail page with the full filing, the contact information for the responsible state agency, and references back to the original notice where available. We treat rankings as a journalistic tool, useful for finding the story, not a substitute for reading the source documents.

Methodology, Sources, and Corrections

Every ranking on this site is derived from WARN Act notice records collected from the state labor agencies listed on our methodology page. Notices are normalized into a common schema (employer, location, workers affected, notice date, effective date, closure type) before being indexed. State agency naming conventions, address formats, and worker-count reporting differ, our normalization documentation explains every transformation we apply and where it can introduce error. We do not blend in private sources, anonymous tips, or aggregated layoff trackers that include unconfirmed reports. If a notice has been amended by the employer, we track both versions and surface the most recent on the ranked view.

If you believe a ranking is miscomputed, that a record is misclassified, or that a notice on a detail page contains an error, please email us at the address on the contact page with the specific record ID and the expected correction. We investigate corrections within the next refresh cycle. Corrections that affect the published ranking are rolled forward immediately; cosmetic fixes go out on the next scheduled refresh. We log every correction in an audit trail so that the public can see what was changed and when.

Browsing Beyond the Rankings

Rankings are one entry point. The site also offers employer profiles, state pages, industry views, and year-over-year analysis. Each route supports different research workflows. A journalist tracking a specific company through multiple rounds of layoffs is best served by the employer profile, which lists every WARN notice the company has filed in the index period. A policy researcher comparing state-level trends will benefit from the state and industry views, which aggregate by NAICS sector and publication year.

For readers who want context beyond rankings, our editorial guides explain how the WARN Act works, what triggers a notice, which employers are covered, and what rights workers have when a notice is filed. The guides cite the statute and official sources directly, and are updated as the regulatory landscape changes. Together, rankings, detail pages, and editorial guides make PlainLayoffs a comprehensive public resource for understanding mass layoffs in the United States.