Laid Off from the Living Room: When Do Remote Workers Trigger the WARN Act?

The federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act gives employees a measure of security against sudden job loss. Employers with 100 or more workers must give 60 days’ written notice before a mass layoff or plant closing. But that duty turns on a deceptively simple phrase: the layoff must affect at least 50 employees at a “single site of employment.” When a company’s workforce sits together in one building, counting heads is easy. When employees work from home across counties or several states, the “site” nearly disappears — and the notice obligation may become harder to prove.

The Dargon Decision

A recent decision, Dargon v. Xtend Healthcare, LLC (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2026), shows how much rides on that phrase. A call-center supervisor sued after she and hundreds of coworkers lost their jobs without warning. All of them worked remotely, taking assignments from a Tennessee headquarters. The plaintiff argued the headquarters was their shared “single site.” The court disagreed and dismissed her federal claim.

The reasoning centered on a Department of Labor regulation, 20 C.F.R. § 639.3(i)(6) — often called “Subpart 6.” It provides that workers with no fixed workplace are covered at the “home base” from which they draw assignments or to which they report. Employees argue this language reaches remote workers who report to a central office. The Dargon court read it far more narrowly. Adopting the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Meson v. GATX Technology Services Corp., 507 F.3d 803 (4th Cir. 2007), it held that Subpart 6 was written for mobile workers — traveling salespeople, railroad crews, delivery drivers — not for employees who simply telecommute from a fixed home office. Because the plaintiff never traveled for work, the court found she had no qualifying single site at all and dismissed her federal claim with prejudice.

Dargon is not the last word. As the court itself acknowledged, judges are split. Other courts — including the bankruptcy courts in Hoover v. Drivetrain, LLC and Weatherwax v. Sunnova — have read the same regulation to reach remote employees, reasoning that its text plainly covers workers who report to a central hub. No federal court of appeals has yet resolved the divide. For now, the answer depends heavily on where a case is filed.

Why the Split Matters in Georgia

That uncertainty matters close to home. Our employment practice runs through Georgia’s courts and the federal courts of the Eleventh Circuit — Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Neither Dargon (a Sixth Circuit district court) nor Meson (the Fourth Circuit) binds those courts. The Eleventh Circuit has not squarely decided whether fully remote workers share a single site of employment. Both decisions are therefore persuasive authority that a judge here may weigh — or reject.

Practical Steps Before a Remote-Worker Layoff

For employers, the lesson is caution, not comfort. A decision like Dargon may shrink WARN exposure for remote-heavy layoffs, but relying on it is a gamble. A court in this Circuit could just as easily follow the broader view and treat a headquarters as the anchor for a scattered remote workforce. Employers planning a reduction in force should count remote employees under both approaches, document how and where those employees are managed, and treat 60 days’ notice as the safer default.  Many states impose their own “mini-WARN” laws with different triggers. Georgia does not have a full mini-WARN statute, but Georgia employers should still confirm any mass-separation reporting obligations and check the law of any state where remote employees are based.

Bottom Line for Employees

For employees, Dargon is a reminder that the location of your desk — even a desk in your own home — can decide whether the law protects you at all. Where the case is filed, what state law applies, and how the employer assigned or managed the remote job may matter as much as where the employee actually opened a laptop each morning.

This post is for general information only and not legal advice. For guidance on a specific situation, please contact our office.