Mass. bill would require 60-day notice and new definition for mass layoffs

Representative Daniel J. Hunt filed House Bill 2127 on Jan. 14, 2025, proposing changes to Massachusetts General Laws, chapter 151A, to expand and clarify notice and liability requirements for large-scale reductions in force.

The bill would require employers to give the commissioner written notice at least 60 days before a plant closing, partial closing or mass layoff and to include the information elements required by the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seq.).

If enacted, the measure would add a statutory definition of “mass layoff” and align the job-loss thresholds for partial closings and mass layoffs. Under the proposed definition, a “mass layoff” would mean a reduction, during any 30-day period, of an employer’s workforce at a single municipality or employment site that is not the result of a plant closing or partial closing that affects either at least 25 workers and 25 percent of the workforce, or at least 200 workers.

The bill amends section 71B to direct the commissioner to certify whether a plant closing, partial closing or mass layoff has occurred or will occur. For certification, the commissioner would use the same numeric thresholds across partial closings and mass layoffs: at least 25 workers and 25 percent of the workforce, or at least 200 workers, with separations counted within a six-month period or another period the commissioner prescribes that still falls within the prior six months.

The proposed law would create a private-liability remedy for employees who lose employment without required notice. Employers who fail to give required notice would be liable to each employee entitled to notice for (1) back pay at the higher of the employee’s average regular rate during the last three years or the employee’s final rate of compensation, and (2) the value of benefits the employee would have received had employment not been lost, including medical expenses that would have been covered. Liability would be calculated for the period of the employer’s violation up to a maximum of 60 days or one-half the number of days the employee was employed by the employer, whichever is smaller. The bill also describes reductions in liability for wages paid during the violation period, voluntary unconditional payments, and payments on behalf of an employee to third parties such as benefit premiums or pension contributions.

Exemptions in the draft include events “necessitated by a physical calamity or act of war.” The bill also allows the commissioner to waive the notice requirement if the employer satisfies three conditions: (1) as of when notice would have been required the employer was actively seeking capital or business; (2) obtaining that capital or business would have enabled the employer to avoid or postpone the job losses; and (3) the employer reasonably and in good faith believed that giving the notice would have prevented obtaining the needed capital or business. To qualify for that exemption, the employer must provide the department with a written record of all relevant documents and an affidavit verifying their contents; the affidavit must include a declaration signed under penalty of perjury that the record is true and correct.

The bill would replace current section 71C language to require that proposed regulations under section 71B be filed with the clerks of the House and Senate 30 days before publishing notice of a public hearing under section 2 of chapter 30A. The measure also inserts the phrase “mass layoff” into cross-references in sections 71D and 71F. The act is drafted to take effect upon passage.

The bill was presented to the Legislature as House No. 2127 and referred to the Joint Committee on Labor and Workforce Development. A similar filing appeared in the prior session as House No. 1899 of 2023–2024.