You do not need another list of layoffs. Every WARN notice is already public, and the register is free to anyone who wants to download it. What you need is the subset where the paperwork itself already shows a problem — and you need it without spending your week building a spreadsheet to find it.
That is the entire product. We read the notice date and the effective date off the state's own register, subtract one from the other, and hand you every filing where the gap is under 60 days at a site with 50 or more affected workers. The candidate arrives identified. The sourcing step is gone.
Why this is different from a layoff lead
A layoff lead tells you that a layoff happened. You still have to work out whether there is anything wrong with it. A short-notice candidate tells you that the employer's own filing — the document the state published, not our inference — records fewer days than the statute requires.
That difference matters commercially, because it changes what you are buying. You are not buying a name to research. You are buying a filing where the first question a WARN claim turns on has already been answered from a government record, with the dates attached.
The damages arithmetic is mechanical
WARN's remedy is unusually easy to size early. Where a violation is established, the employer is liable for back pay and benefits for each day of violation, capped at 60 days. There is no causation puzzle and no damages expert required to know the order of magnitude — it is a headcount multiplied by a number of days, both of which are on the face of the filing.
So the moment a candidate lands in your inbox, you can size it. The largest candidate currently in our 12-month window is a 725-worker California site whose notice was recorded 26 days before the effective date — 34 days short. You can do that multiplication in your head before you open a file.
What is actually in the feed right now
Real counts, taken from the live pipeline on the day this was published:
- 121 candidates in the last 12 months — roughly ten a month
- 14 of them record zero days of notice
- 41 record 14 days or fewer
- 14,073 workers on notice across the 121 filings
- 250 candidates across a 24-month look-back, if you work a longer window
The four largest by affected-worker count, as of publication:
| State | Workers on notice | Days' notice recorded | Short of 60 by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CA | 725 | 26 | 34 days |
| CA | 411 | 59 | 1 day |
| CA | 390 | 27 | 33 days |
| CA | 329 | 59 | 1 day |
We do not publish the employer names here. That is partly because the name is what you are paying for — but mostly because publicly attaching a named company to a possible statutory shortfall is not something we will do to a company that has not been heard. You get the name, the county, the exact dates and a link to the state source record when you buy the candidate.
What it costs
Two ways to buy, both flat. Kcalbin never takes a share of a settlement, a fee, or a case value — there is no product, and no code path, that could.
- $395 for a single candidate, delivered to your inbox on payment.
- $795/month for the whole feed, every candidate as it is detected. Cancel anytime.
At current volumes the subscription is the cheaper side of the trade by a wide margin: roughly ten candidates a month at $395 each would be about $3,950. If you work WARN matters continuously, the feed costs about a fifth of buying the same candidates one at a time. If you work them occasionally, buy the one you want and nothing else.
Browse the live candidates How the detection works
What this is not
This is a screening signal, not a legal conclusion. The WARN Act contains real statutory exceptions that can lawfully shorten or excuse the 60-day period — the faltering-company exception, unforeseeable business circumstances, and natural disaster (29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)) — and any of them may apply to any candidate in the feed. The 50-worker screen is what the registers publish, not the statutory coverage test, which turns on the employer's total headcount and the proportion of the workforce affected.
So: these are filings worth your attention, identified for you from the public record. Whether any given one is a case is your judgment, not ours. Kcalbin is not a law firm and does not give legal advice.
Coverage is currently California and New York. If you want the mechanics of how the underlying WARN data is assembled, that is on the product page, and there is a longer piece on how plaintiff-side attorneys find WARN cases that covers the signals a raw state spreadsheet hides. Our original scored-filing product, WARN Intelligence, is a different thing and sold separately.