JP Morgan Chase Files 91-Worker WARN Notice in Jersey City

A newly imported WARN record lists 91 workers at JP Morgan Chase in Jersey City, New Jersey, with an effective date of October 30, 2026. The notice date is unavailable in the record, so no notice period can be calculated from the data as published.

The filing appeared in Layoff Atlas's recently imported records, the section for notices whose publication date is not attached to the record. That distinction matters: the record tells us the size of the planned action and when it takes effect, but not when the employer gave notice. Without a notice date, there is no way to check the filing against the federal WARN Act's 60-day advance-notice standard from this record alone.

What the filing shows

The details on the record are short. The employer is listed as JP Morgan Chase. The location is Jersey City, New Jersey. The worker count is 91. The effective date is October 30, 2026. No site address, no layoff-versus-closure classification, and no notice date accompany the entry.

That sparseness is normal for recently imported records. State WARN postings vary widely in how much detail they publish, and secondary archives sometimes carry only the core fields. The record is still useful: it puts a named employer, a place, a headcount, and a date on the public record, which is the whole point of WARN disclosure.

Jersey City sits in the New York metropolitan area's financial corridor, and a 91-worker action there is modest by the standards of the largest filings in the current window. It is not among the biggest notices of the fall. Its significance is narrower: it is one more data point in a steady flow of financial-services and back-office adjustments showing up in the registry, and it is the largest recently imported filing not already covered in this series.

New Jersey in the national picture

New Jersey's imported WARN archive is large. Layoff Atlas counts 2,345 non-cancelled imported notices for the state, reporting 376,230 workers affected, with 25 notices carrying future effective dates. In 2026 alone, the state shows 142 notices covering 18,011 workers.

For comparison, the national 90-day window currently holds 666 notices covering 62,948 reported workers, with 28 counts unavailable. The heaviest states in that window are California at 18,196 workers, Washington at 17,336, Illinois at 3,649, Texas at 2,978, and Maryland at 2,429. New Jersey does not crack that top five, but its long archive — including the pandemic-era spike of 226 notices and 74,329 workers in 2020 — shows a state where large-scale workforce actions have been a recurring feature for years.

The registry covers 51 jurisdictions, 48 of which have imported records. Figures combine official records and labelled secondary reports, and worker totals exclude unavailable counts. Coverage is partial: a missing record is not evidence that no layoff happened, and a listed record is a reported plan, not a confirmed job loss.

What comes next in the calendar

The upcoming effective weeks remain heavy. The week of November 3 carries 2,350 scheduled workers, followed by 6,887 in the week of November 10 and 6,613 in the week of November 17. The week of November 24 is currently the heaviest on the calendar at 9,300 workers, before the schedule eases to 2,398 in the week of December 1 and 1,296 in the week of December 8.

The JP Morgan Chase effective date of October 30 falls just before that window, in a week already largely in the past. That timing is worth noting for workers and readers tracking the calendar: effective dates in the registry describe when the action was scheduled to take effect, and a record imported after its effective date is a matter of public record catching up, not a forecast.

How to read a record like this

A WARN record with no notice date should be read with its limits in mind. First, the worker count is the number the filing reports, not a verified tally of people who lost jobs; some filings are later amended, and some planned actions shrink before they take effect. Second, the absence of a notice date is a data gap, not a finding of non-compliance — the notice may have been given on time through a channel the imported record does not capture. Third, a single filing says nothing about an employer's wider workforce plans; JP Morgan Chase employs far more people in the region than the 91 workers in this record.

For workers named in a notice, the practical steps are the same regardless of the record's completeness: confirm the effective date and any severance or benefits information with the employer, file for unemployment promptly, and check state rapid-response services, which are designed to activate around exactly these filings.

The caveat that applies to every number here

All figures in this article describe reported plans, not confirmed job losses. WARN coverage is not a census of layoffs, reporting rules vary by state, and imported records can lag the events they describe. The numbers are best used the way the registry intends them: as a public, checkable record of what employers told the states, updated as new notices arrive.

Data source: Layoff Atlas