The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Former Zulily employees’ lawsuit over alleged failures to provide advance layoff notice or pay is now a certified class action. On July 28, 2026, a federal court approved five classes covering federal WARN Act claims and state wage-payment claims in Washington, Ohio and Nevada. Certification lets the case proceed on behalf of the defined groups; it is not a ruling that Zulily or Regent broke the law, and the reviewed court records do not establish a settlement or payout.
What the Zulily lawsuit alleges
The case, Smith et al. v. Zulily LLC et al., was filed in federal court in Seattle on September 16, 2024. Former employees Jittania Smith, a software engineer, and Kathryn Costello, a merchandise director, brought claims against Zulily, LLC and Regent, L.P. over layoffs and shutdown events in 2023. GeekWire reported that the initial complaint alleged that remote employees were not given the 60 days’ notice or pay the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) requires in qualifying circumstances.
The plaintiffs contend the WARN Act covers remote workers affected by a qualifying plant closing or mass layoff. Their complaint also includes wage-payment claims under Washington, Ohio and Nevada law, and argues Regent may be liable alongside Zulily under a single-employer theory. These remain plaintiffs’ claims, not established findings of wrongdoing.
In the 2024 report, GeekWire quoted the complaint as saying: “This was not accurate, however, and the WARN Act does in fact cover remote workers who are affected by a ‘plant closing’ or ‘mass layoff’ as defined by the statue.” That is the plaintiffs’ assertion, including the apparent typo in “statue”; it is not a statement by the court.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
What the court has decided—and what it has not
There have been two important rulings. On May 13, 2025, Judge Kymberly K. Evanson denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, allowing the claims to proceed beyond the pleading stage. That ruling did not decide whether the defendants are liable or establish that remote workers are covered in every layoff situation. The court’s order explains the procedural decision.
On July 28, 2026, the court granted the plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to certify five classes. Certification defines which groups may pursue claims together; it does not decide whether the claims are true or award damages. The order directed the parties to submit a proposed class notice by August 11, 2026. The reviewed records do not establish whether a notice was later issued, or whether the case has since settled or reached a final liability decision. The July 2026 certification order sets out the classes.
Rank #2
Who is included in the five certified classes
The July 28 order defines two federal WARN Act classes and three state wage-payment classes. Eligibility depends on the separation date, work or residence location, notice or pay received, and— for the December group—whether the employee continued working during a specified transition.
| Class | Who the order includes | Proposed count stated in the order |
|---|---|---|
| Federal WARN Act: December | Employees separated on or about December 13, 2023, who did not receive 60 days’ advance notice or pay in lieu, and did not continue working in Zulily’s assignment-for-benefit-of-creditors transition. | 304, based on plaintiffs’ motion and deposition testimony as recited in the 2026 order. |
| Federal WARN Act: October | Employees who reported to Zulily’s Washington headquarters and were separated on or about October 25, 2023, without 60 days’ advance notice or pay in lieu. | 179, based on plaintiffs’ motion and deposition testimony as recited in the 2026 order. |
| Washington wage-payment | Members of either federal class who lived and/or worked in Washington at separation. | 238, based on plaintiffs’ motion and deposition testimony as recited in the 2026 order. |
| Ohio wage-payment | Members of either federal class who lived and/or worked in Ohio at separation. | 208, based on plaintiffs’ motion and deposition testimony as recited in the 2026 order. |
| Nevada wage-payment | Members of either federal class who lived and/or worked in Nevada at separation. | Not stated in the July 28, 2026 order excerpt. |
The counts are figures reported from plaintiffs’ motion and deposition testimony, not a final determination of how many people will recover money. They should not be added together as a total number of unique employees because people may qualify for more than one class.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesRank #3
Did remote Zulily workers receive WARN notice or pay?
The lawsuit alleges that some affected employees, including remote workers, did not receive the required notice or pay. The 2026 order certifies a December federal class based on separation date and notice-or-pay criteria, but its separate October federal class is limited to employees who reported to the Washington headquarters. The class definitions therefore do not support a blanket conclusion about every remote Zulily employee or every layoff.
Whether a particular employee is covered depends on the court-approved class definitions and the facts of the person’s employment and separation. The certification order is procedural: it does not determine that the WARN Act was violated or that any class member is owed compensation.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How Beyond, Inc. relates to the case
The defendants named in the lawsuit are Zulily, LLC and Regent, L.P., not Beyond, Inc. GeekWire reported that a Beyond spokesperson said the company bought certain intellectual-property assets of the now-defunct legacy Zulily in March 2024 and had no involvement in the case. That is Beyond’s statement as reported by GeekWire; it does not change who is named as a defendant in this action.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
