Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC California Layoffs 2026: What Employees Should Know

What the filing says

These are the details as Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC reported them to the state. The EDD publishes every notice, and these figures come from the state's report as retrieved on Oct 29, 2026.

How much notice the law requires

California's WARN Act requires 60 days of advance written notice before a covered mass layoff, and its only statutory exception is a physical calamity or an act of war — far narrower than federal law's three. Who is covered and how the thresholds are counted is in our California WARN Act guide.

Randstad Inhouse Services severance: what to check before you sign

A severance offer is not the notice pay the WARN Act describes. Severance you were already promised — in a contract, a handbook, or a union agreement — cannot be used to satisfy that obligation, though Labor Code section 1402 does let an employer reduce a back-pay award by voluntary payments it was never required to make. A release may also give up more than you expect. Justin reviews severance agreements before workers sign. What to check before you decide is in our full guide to the California WARN Act.

Two things worth doing this week either way. File for unemployment now — WARN money does not reduce it, and the filings here run through Nov 22, 2026, so you do not have to wait for your last day. And keep every document, including the notice itself and anything showing when it arrived.

What your notice was required to include

Timing is only half of what Labor Code section 1401 asks for. The notice itself has to contain specific things, and California added most of this list for notices issued on or after January 1, 2026. 2 of the 4 notices here fall after that date; the earlier ones were not subject to the new content rules. If you kept your copy, read it against the full six-item checklist in our WARN Act guide — everything federal law requires, whether transition help is being coordinated, working contact details for your workforce board and for the employer itself, and CalFresh information.

Source: Labor Code section 1401, as amended by SB 617, effective January 1, 2026. A notice missing something from that list is not automatically a violation with a remedy attached — whether a gap matters depends on the employer, the action, and what else happened.

Questions people are asking

Where a layoff can raise a legal question

A layoff is lawful on its own, and nothing below is a statement about Randstad Inhouse Services. These are the places California law can still come into play, depending on the facts of your own situation.

• The severance you were asked to signA release can give up claims you did not know you had, and the terms are sometimes negotiable.
• How you were selectedA reduction in force still cannot be used to cut someone for a protected reason such as age, disability, pregnancy, or a complaint they made.
• Your final paycheckCalifornia sets when final wages are due at termination, and unpaid time or accrued vacation can carry penalties on top of the wages.
• The length of the notice periodWhere a notice period turns out to fall short of what the law required, the question usually belongs to everyone in the same position rather than to one person.

General information about California law, not legal advice, and reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship.

What has been reported

Press coverage of this layoff, summarized and attributed. This is reporting rather than the filing itself, and we did not independently verify it.

The Bakersfield address in this filing, 7301 District Boulevard, is the Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream plant. Dreyer's filed its own WARN notice for two temporary factory closures for what the company called "necessary upgrades," and 23ABC (KERO) reported that with the exception of the maintenance team the entire factory would shut down, temporarily laying off about 726 of the plant's workers.

The first closure was set to begin Nov. 23, 2025, with employees expected back on Dec. 1, and the second to begin Dec. 21 with workers scheduled to return Jan. 4, according to 23ABC. Randstad's Bakersfield filing is classified as a temporary closure effective Nov. 23, the same date the plant shutdown was set to begin. The staffing firm's separate Tulare filing is not addressed in this reporting.

Sources: 23ABC Bakersfield (KERO) (opens in a new tab)

What the numbers show

• The filings name 2 locations: Bakersfield and Tulare.
• They cover 4 separate addresses rather than a single site, so co-workers at different locations may have received different dates.
• Every notice is filed as a closure rather than a partial reduction, meaning the sites themselves are shutting down.
• At least one notice is marked temporary rather than permanent. A temporary designation is what the employer reported; it is not a promise of recall.
• The jobs do not all end on the same day. The filings list 4 separate last days of work, running from November 23, 2025 to November 22, 2026.
• The shortest gap between notice and last day here is 56 days, close to the statewide median of 61 days across every notice on file.
• Within Kern County, this accounts for 17% of all workers covered by WARN notices on file, across 24 employers.
• By headcount it is the 12th-largest of the 671 employer layoffs tracked here.
• The EDD records the employer's sector as Manufacturing.
• The 840 workers leaving Randstad Inhouse Services, LLC re-enter a job market where Kern County unemployment stood at 8.6% in July 2026, above the 5.3% statewide rate (Bureau of Labor Statistics, not seasonally adjusted).
• The filings came in waves: 2 notices in September 2025 covering 324 jobs, then 2 notices in September 2026 covering 516 jobs.

These are counts and comparisons drawn from the published filings, not findings about Randstad Inhouse Services.

Free job-search help near the affected sites

America's Job Center of California is the state's no-cost network for laid-off workers: help filing and keeping unemployment benefits, federally funded retraining, and résumé and interview coaching. Your WARN notice may name one; these are the closest to the sites in these filings.

• Tulare County Employment Connection - Tulare (opens in a new tab)

  155 N. K Street, Tulare, CA 93274 · 559-684-1987

  Affiliate center (partial services) · about 1.8 miles from the Tulare site

• EPIC - Envision-Plan-Innovate-Connect (opens in a new tab)

  2211 H Street, Bakersfield, CA 93301 · 661-336-6460

  Affiliate center (partial services) · about 5.7 miles from the Bakersfield site

Locations and hours change — confirm before visiting, or find another center with the EDD's center locator (opens in a new tab). Directory: U.S. Department of Labor, Jul 31, 2026; distances are straight-line from the address in the filing.

Other layoffs filed in Kern County around the same time

24 employers have WARN notices on file in Kern County, covering 3,681 workers. These filed within about a quarter of this one.

• Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream2,899 workers
• Adventist Health614 workers
• Chevron300 workers
• Ventura Coastal210 workers
• Pactiv LLC127 workers
• Vistar Green Rabbit107 workers

Listed because they appear in the same county in the same public data. No connection between these employers is implied.

California wage claims filed against Randstad Inhouse Services

California employers face claims under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), which lets an employee sue for civil penalties over Labor Code violations on behalf of the state. The state publishes every filing. 5 PAGA cases naming this employer are on that record, including the settlements below.

These are outcomes in other people’s cases, obtained by other lawyers, taken from the state’s public filing record. They are not results of this firm, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. What any individual recovers depends on their own hours, pay records, and dates.

• Proposed settlement · 2026

  $1,550,000

  Warehouse workers in California were not given compliant meal and rest breaks, were not paid for all hours worked including time spent in security checks and clocking in, were not reimbursed for business expenses like cutting tools and uniforms, and did not receive accurate wage statements or timely final wages. The parties agreed to settle these claims for a gross settlement of $1,550,000, with Defendants denying all liability.

  Covered all current and former non-exempt employees who worked at a facility operated by XPO/GXO in California from March 1, 2018 to May 23, 2025. The settlement resolved class claims as well as PAGA penalties.

  Employees covered

  6,501

  To the state (LWDA)

  $75,000

  United States District Court, Central District of California · 5:22-cv-01399-TJH-ACCV · Randstad Inhouse Services denied liability; a settlement is not an admission.

• Proposed settlement · 2025

  $1,312,680

  A settlement has been reached between the plaintiff and Dreyer's Grand Ice Cream, Inc. and Randstad. The settlement resolves claims brought on behalf of current and former non-exempt hourly employees who worked for Dreyer's in California, alleging that they were not provided meal and rest periods, not paid for all hours worked (including off-the-clock work, such as donning/doffing uniforms or waiting in line for security checks), and not reimbursed for business expenses. The defendants deny any wrongdoing, and the settlement is not an admission of liability.

  Covered all current and former non-exempt or hourly employees who worked for Defendant DGIC in California at any time during the Class Period. The settlement resolved class claims as well as PAGA penalties.

  Attorneys' fees

  $437,560

  To the state (LWDA)

  $243,750

  Superior Court of the State of California, County of Kern · 22CV022986 · Randstad Inhouse Services denied liability; a settlement is not an admission.

• Court-approved settlement · 2025

  $295,000

  The affected employees were non-party aggrieved employees covered by the Private Attorneys General Act. The filing is a court order approving a PAGA settlement that resolves claims without admission of liability. The settlement provides payments to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and to aggrieved employees, with the court finding the settlement fair and reasonable.

  Covered Aggrieved Employees. The settlement resolved PAGA civil penalties only.

  Attorneys' fees

  $98,333

  To the state (LWDA)

  $125,258

  Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino · CIVSB2224269 · Randstad Inhouse Services denied liability; a settlement is not an admission.

2 further settlements are on the record for this employer.

A PAGA case is not a class action, and there is nothing to opt out of. A PAGA settlement resolves civil penalties owed to the state — most of which the state keeps — and it does not necessarily resolve your own unpaid wages, missed break premiums, or final-paycheck penalties. If you worked here and were not paid correctly, that is a separate question worth asking about. How California wage claims work.

Other Manufacturing layoffs in California

Employers the EDD lists in the same sector with WARN notices on file statewide.

• Oracle America, Inc.1,628 workers
• Intel Corporation1,542 workers
• Jabil, Inc.817 workers
• Fender Musical Instruments Corporation593 workers
• Silgan Containers565 workers

Grouped by the industry the EDD recorded on the filings. No connection between these employers is implied.