The WARN Act requires 60 days' notice. Some filings, by the employer's own notice, show far less — sometimes none at all. We read the notice date and the layoff effective date off the filing itself, subtract, and surface every filing where the interval falls short at a site with 50 or more affected workers.
A WARN lead tells you a layoff happened. This tells you the state's own paperwork already records an interval shorter than the statute requires.
The finding comes from two dates in a government record. We are not inferring a violation from an absence of paperwork — we are reading the paperwork that exists.
Employer, county, affected-worker count, notice date, effective date, and the exact shortfall against 60 days. The screening work is already done.
Everything we cover is re-read on a schedule, so a filing that appears late, or is quietly amended after the fact, enters the queue without anyone remembering to look.
Real counts from the live pipeline, stated plainly rather than as a range we would like to be true.
Candidates in the last 12 months: 0–59 days recorded notice, 50+ affected workers. Roughly ten a month.
Candidates across the last 24 months, for firms working a longer look-back.
States currently covered. We do not claim national coverage, because we do not have it.
Real rows from the current queue, with the employer withheld. The employer name is the product — and publicly attaching a named company to a possible statutory shortfall is not something we will do to a company that has not been heard. These are the four largest by affected-worker count currently in the 12-month window; they are not selected to flatter the numbers.
| 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 |
Flat and subscription only. Kcalbin never takes a share of a settlement, a fee, or a case value — there is no product, and no code path, that could.
Full detail on one short-notice candidate, delivered to your inbox on payment.
Every short-notice candidate we detect, in your inbox as it is found. Cancel anytime.
How the two differ at checkout, stated plainly. The monthly feed is a direct subscription. Single candidates are sold one at a time from the live candidate list — each row carries its own unlock link bound to that one filing, the same mechanism as our $149 WARN product. Both are real checkouts; neither requires talking to us first.
Every WARN filing carries a notice date and a layoff effective date. We parse both, normalise them, and compute the interval. A filing enters the queue when that interval is under 60 days and the affected-worker count is 50 or more.
This is a screening signal. It is not a legal conclusion, and it is not legal advice. The WARN Act contains real statutory exceptions that can lawfully shorten or excuse the 60-day notice — the faltering-company exception, unforeseeable business circumstances, and natural disaster (29 U.S.C. § 2102(b)). A short interval is a reason to look, not a finding that anyone did anything wrong. Kcalbin is not a law firm.
The 50-worker screen is a proxy, not the statutory test. WARN coverage turns on the employer having 100+ employees and on a qualifying employment loss — 50+ at a single site amounting to at least 33% of the active workforce, or 500+ regardless. We screen on affected-worker count because that is what the filings report. Confirming coverage is the buyer's work, and we say so before you pay rather than after.
Some rows are flagged, not sold as clean. A small number of records show a notice date after the effective date. That is either a genuinely retroactive notice or a date artifact in an amended filing, and we cannot tell which from the filing alone. Those are labelled for source verification and are never delivered as confirmed findings.
Coverage is CA and NY. Anything outside those states is simply not in our data. We would rather say that than imply a national feed we do not run.
We built it. It currently finds nothing, and you should know that before you buy rather than discover it afterwards.
A WARN claim carries priority over general unsecured claims in a bankruptcy, so a short-notice candidate whose employer is also in Chapter 11 or Chapter 7 is worth more than one that is not. That cross-reference exists in our pipeline as a second tier and runs on every scan.
Right now it returns zero candidates, across both a 12-month and a 24-month window. The reason is not a bug: the bankruptcy filings we track are dominated by small single-asset entities with no employees and no WARN obligation, our WARN coverage is two states against a national bankruptcy feed, and the court data carries no workforce-size field to filter on. Until those change, the overlay adds nothing, and it is priced into nothing.
It ships enabled anyway, with a strict guard: a match requires an exact normalised company-name match and a matching state. Loose matching produced exactly one hit in testing — a bagel shop in Brooklyn matched against a national electronics retailer — which is precisely the kind of false lead this product exists not to sell.
Plaintiff-side employment attorneys working WARN Act matters. Secondarily, workforce agencies and researchers tracking notice compliance as a labour-market indicator.
Pricing is flat or subscription only. A deliberate constraint held in the database schema rather than by convention: there is no column that could hold a percentage or a case value. Kcalbin provides screening intelligence, not legal advice or representation.
Digital delivery. There is nothing to ship and no shipping cost.
Single candidate unlocks are delivered immediately and are final once delivered — the data cannot be returned once you have seen it.
Monthly subscriptions carry a full refund within 14 days of the first charge. After that you can cancel at any time; cancellation stops future billing and is not retroactive.
Or browse the live candidate list and unlock a single candidate at $395.