California Paid Sick Leave Law: What Employers and Employees Need to Know
California’s paid sick leave law is known as the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act. It was enacted in 2014 and is found at California Labor Code sections 245 through 249. Since its enactment, the statute has been amended several times, most recently effective January 1, 2024, then again effective October 1, 2025, expanding employer obligations and the reasons for which paid sick leave can be used by employees. The law establishes minimum paid sick leave rights for employees statewide, is broadly applicable to both private sector and public sector employers, and is enforced by the Labor Commissioner and through civil lawsuits, including limited individual actions and representative actions under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).
Although the law’s core requirements are relatively straightforward, employers can easily fall out of compliance by overlooking more technical or operational details. Understanding what the paid sick leave law allows relative to employer attendance policies, employee notice requirements, documentation practices, and payroll procedures is important.
Who Is Covered
California’s paid sick leave law applies to nearly all employees who work in California for the same employer for thirty or more days within a year from the commencement of employment. This coverage rule is set forth in Labor Code section 245.5. Coverage is not limited to full-time employees, and there is no small-employer exception. (Special rules apply to certain categories of workers, such as In-Home Supportive Services providers, which are not covered in this article.)
While the statute includes limited exclusions (such as certain employees covered by qualifying collective bargaining agreements, certain public sector retired annuitants, and certain air carrier employees), those exclusions are narrowly drawn and expressly defined. Absent a clearly applicable statutory exemption, California employers should generally assume the law applies to them.
Accrual and Front-Loading Requirements
Employees must accrue at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked beginning with their first day of employment, unless the employer uses an alternative accrual method that meets statutory minimums. For employers using an accrual method, overtime-exempt employees are deemed to work 40 hours per workweek for the purposes of paid sick leave accrual. This accrual standard is established by Labor Code section 246(b).
As of January 1, 2024, employers must allow employees to accrue no fewer than 80 hours or ten workdays, whichever is greater, of paid sick leave, and may cap accrual at that level. This expanded accrual cap is mandated by Labor Code section 246(j).
Instead of using this accrual method, employers may alternatively satisfy their obligations through a compliant front-loading method, or “up front’ policy. To do so, the employer must provide at least 24 hours (or three workdays, whichever is greater) of paid sick leave by the 120th calendar day of initial employment, and at least 40 hours (or five workdays, whichever is greater) by the 200th calendar day of initial employment, as provided in Labor Code section 246(b)(3). When using an “up front” policy, the employer thereafter provides employees a full 40 hours (or five workdays, whichever is greater) of paid sick leave at the beginning of each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period. (Labor Code section 246 (d).)
When Paid Sick Leave May Be Used
Employees may begin using accrued paid sick leave by the 90th day of employment, regardless of how much leave has accrued. This waiting period is authorized by Labor Code section 246(c).
Paid sick leave may be used for the employee’s own diagnosis, care, or treatment of a health condition, or for preventive care. It may also be used to care for a family member, including a child, parent, spouse, registered domestic partner, grandparent, grandchild, or sibling. Paid sick leave may also be used for purposes related to domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including medical care, counseling, relocation, or participation in related legal proceedings. Outdoor agricultural employees may use paid sick leave to avoid smoke, heat, or flooding conditions caused by a declared local or state emergency, including when the worksite is closed due to those conditions. These permissible uses are set forth in Labor Code section 246.5(a).
Employees may also use paid sick leave for legally mandated bereavement leave under Government Code section 12945.7.
Effective October 1, 2025, Labor Code section 246.5 was amended to clarify that employees may also use paid sick leave to serve on a jury, to appear in court to comply with a subpoena or other lawful court order as a witness, to seek a protective order as a victim of crime, stalking, domestic violence, or other qualifying crimes, and to attend specified legal proceedings when the employee or their family member is a victim of crime. (See Government Code section 12945.8(a)(4).)
Importantly, the decision whether to use paid sick leave, and how much paid sick leave to use, rests with the employee. While an employer must allow paid sick leave to be used for qualifying purposes, the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act does not permit an employer to require an employee to use paid sick leave instead of other available leave or unpaid time off. This principle is reflected in Labor Code section 246.5(a), which provides that an employee may determine how much accrued paid sick leave to use, and is reinforced by guidance from the Labor Commissioner.
A narrow statutory exception applies in the context of organ and bone marrow donation leave. Under Labor Code section 1510, employers may require employees to use up to five days of accrued paid sick leave for leave connected to bone marrow donation, and up to two weeks of accrued paid sick leave for leave connected to organ donation. Outside of these limited circumstances, paid sick leave remains a voluntary benefit controlled by the employee.
An employer may set a reasonable minimum for each time and employee uses paid sick leave, so long as the minimum does not exceed two hours, as permitted by Labor Code section 246(k).
Additionally, under Labor Code section 246(d), employers may limit an employee’s use of accrued paid sick leave to 40 hours or five days, whichever is greater, in each year of employment, calendar year, or 12-month period.
Employee Notice Requirements
California law requires employees to request paid sick leave with reasonable advance notice as is practicable under the circumstances. This standard is set forth in Labor Code section 246(m), which addresses foreseeability of the need for the leave.
Where the need for paid sick leave is foreseeable, such as a scheduled medical appointment or planned treatment, reasonable notice may involve several days or even weeks of advance notice, depending on the circumstances. By contrast, where the need for leave arises from an unforeseen illness, injury, or emergency, reasonable notice may be very short, including notice provided shortly before or even after the start of a shift. For this reason, an employer may not impose discipline or deny paid sick leave without first evaluating whether the advance notice provided was reasonable under the circumstances, given the nature of the absence and the timing of the request.
Importantly, the paid sick leave statute does not establish any deadline by which an employee must request use of paid sick leave after an absence has occurred. Because the statute relies on a reasonableness standard rather than fixed timelines, employer policies that deny the use of paid sick leave solely because the employee failed to request it within an arbitrarily defined post-absence deadline present significant legal risk. Such policies are difficult to justify as a business necessity, particularly because employers are not required to pay paid sick leave wages until the payday for the next regular payroll period after the leave is taken.
As a result, employers generally may not impose rigid or abbreviated deadlines (such as requiring employees to request paid sick leave within a set number of hours or days after an absence) as a condition of its use, so long as the absence was for a qualifying purpose. Each situation requires an individualized assessment of the general nature of the absence and whether the timing of the request was reasonable under the circumstances. Policies that automatically deny paid sick leave based on inflexible timing rules risk violating the statute’s anti-interference provisions.
Employees may request paid sick leave orally or in writing. Written requests are not required, and employers may not deny paid sick leave solely because a request was not submitted in writing. As a best practice, employers should attempt, when feasible, to clarify at the time an employee requests or reports an absence whether the employee intends to use paid sick leave for all or part of that absence. Early clarification can help employers apply notice rules, attendance policies, and payroll processing accurately, while remaining compliant with the statute’s requirements.
Employers may not require, as a condition of using paid sick leave, that an employee search for or secure a replacement worker to cover the absence. This prohibition is set forth in Labor Code section 246.5(b) and applies regardless of whether the absence is foreseeable or unforeseeable.
Doctor’s Notes and Medical Certification
As a general rule, employers may not require a doctor’s note or medical certification as a condition of approving paid sick leave. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has consistently advised that paid sick leave is available upon the employee’s request and may not be denied simply because medical documentation is not provided.
There is a narrow, fact-specific exception. Where an employer has reliable, objective information—not merely a hunch or generalized suspicion—showing that the employee is not requesting paid sick leave for a statutorily permitted purpose, the employer may request reasonable verification related to the suspected misuse. Any such request must be reasonable under the circumstances and proportionate to the concern. Blanket mandatory doctor’s note policies remain unlawful as a basis to deny the use of paid sick leave.
Also, when employees take leave for purposes relating to jury duty, a crime, sexual assault, or domestic violence, employers may request a court record, police report, documentation from a professional or victim advocate, a written statement signed by the employee, or other form of documentation reasonably verifying a violent act or other qualifying event occurred. (Government Code section 12945.8(c).)
The paid sick leave statute does not provide a bright-line rule governing how long after an absence an employee must provide clarification or verification when permissibly requested. As a result, employers generally may not impose abbreviated or arbitrary deadlines for documentation as a condition of paid sick leave use, so long as the absence was for an eligible purpose. Retroactive denials based on timing alone present significant legal risk.
Requesting medical certification for other lawful purposes, independent from an employee’s request to use paid sick leave, is not prohibited. This includes, for example, requesting medical information to determine whether an employee has a qualifying disability under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), whether an employee has a serious health condition under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or to assess an employee’s functional limitations and ability to perform essential job duties, provided such inquiries comply with applicable law.
Timing and Calculation of Payment
Paid sick leave wages must be paid no later than the payday for the next regular payroll period after the leave is taken. Earlier payment is permissible, but payment may not be delayed beyond the next pay period. This timing requirement is set forth in Labor Code section 246(n).
Paid sick leave must be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay, as required by Labor Code section 246(l). For non-exempt employees, the statute permits employers to calculate the regular rate of pay using either of two methods: (1) the employee’s regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the paid sick leave is used, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that week; or (2) a weighted average of the employee’s regular (non-overtime) wages paid during the previous 90 days of employment, divided by the total hours worked during that same period. Overtime premiums are excluded from both calculations.
For overtime-exempt employees, paid sick leave must be paid in the same manner as other paid leave, meaning the employee receives their full salary for the time covered by paid sick leave, consistent with salary-basis requirements.
Because paid sick leave is treated as wages, failure to timely or accurately pay requested sick leave can result in independent wage violations, including exposure for wage statement errors and derivative claims, even where the underlying use of paid sick leave was otherwise properly approved.
Balance Reporting and Itemized Pay Stubs
California law requires employers to provide employees with written notice of the amount of paid sick leave available on each payday, either on the itemized wage statement or in a separate written document issued on the employee’s designated payday, as required by Labor Code section 246(i). The statute does not require paid sick leave wages to be separately itemized as a distinct earnings line on the pay stub, so long as paid sick leave wages are properly included in gross wages and the available balance is accurately disclosed.
However, as a best practice, many employers choose to separately and descriptively itemize paid sick leave usage, in addition to the remaining available balance, on the pay stub. While not explicitly required under the statewide paid sick leave law or the itemized wage statement requirements of the Labor Code, this practice improves transparency, reduces employee confusion, and helps prevent disputes regarding paid sick leave usage and balances.
Employer Notices to Employees
Employers must provide paid sick leave information at the time of hire. This obligation is satisfied through the Labor Code section 2810.5 Notice to Employee, which requires employers to disclose, among other things, the employee’s paid sick leave rights and the manner in which paid sick leave accrues and may be used. Failure to provide the required notice at hire is a separate statutory violation. (Labor Code section 2810.5.)
Employers must also conspicously display the state’s approved Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act poster in the workplace where employees can easily read it.
Paid Sick Leave and Final Paychecks
Unlike vacation or accrued Paid Time Off (PTO), unused paid sick leave is not paid out upon separation of employment. Labor Code section 246(g)(1) expressly provides that paid sick leave need not be cashed out at termination, provided the leave is structured as true paid sick leave and not as a combined PTO policy that functions as vacation.
This distinction is important for employers that maintain blended PTO policies, which may create vested wage obligations beyond what the paid sick leave statute requires. (See Labor Code section 227.3.)
If an employee is rehired within one year of separation from employment, the employe’s previously accrued but unused paid sick days must be reinstated. (Labor Code section 246(g)(2).)
Absence Control Policies, Occurrences, and Discipline
A common compliance issue arises when paid sick leave intersects with employer absence control or attendance policies. California law treats requesting and using paid sick leave as a protected activity. Employers may not count the lawful use of paid sick leave as an “occurrence,” attendance point, or other negative factor under a no-fault attendance policy.
The Department of Industrial Relations has made clear that discipline based on the use of paid sick leave, even indirectly through neutral-appearing attendance systems, violates the statute. Policies that convert protected sick leave use into performance deficiencies or disciplinary triggers are unlawful.
Only the portion of an absence actually covered by paid sick leave is protected by the paid sick leave statute itself. If an employee misses part of a shift and elects not to use paid sick leave for the entire absence, the uncovered portion is not protected by paid sick leave. Employers must nevertheless evaluate whether other laws independently apply, including disability accommodation obligations under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), leave for a personal or family serious health condition under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) or the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or other forms of legally protected leave.
Even when addressing portions of an absence that are not protected by paid sick leave, employers may not engage in conduct designed to chill or discourage the lawful request for or use of paid sick leave.
Anti-Retaliation Protections
California’s paid sick leave law contains strong and explicit anti-retaliation protections. The statute does not merely prohibit termination for using paid sick leave; it broadly restricts any adverse employment action that is motivated by an employee’s exercise of paid sick leave rights.
Labor Code section 246.5(c)(1) provides, in relevant part:
An employer shall not deny an employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using accrued sick days, attempting to exercise the right to use accrued sick days, filing a complaint with the division alleging a violation of this article, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this article, or opposing any policy, practice, or act that is prohibited by this article.
This language is intentionally broad. It extends protection not only to the actual use of paid sick leave, but also to attempted use, requests for leave, complaints, cooperation with enforcement agencies, and opposition to unlawful policies or practices. The phrase “in any manner discriminate” is not limited to traditional termination or demotion decisions, but can also encompass a wide range of employer conduct.
The statute further establishes a rebuttable presumption of retaliation. Under Labor Code section 246.5(c)(2), an employer action such as denying the use of accrued sick days, discharge, threat of discharge, demotion, suspension, or other discriminatory conduct taken within 30 days of an employee filing a complaint or alleging a violation of the paid sick leave statute, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution, or opposing a policy, practice, or act prohibited by the statute is presumed retaliatory, thereby requiring the employer to prove a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the action.
In practice, retaliation claims frequently arise from actions such as termination, suspension, or demotion following paid sick leave use. However, claims are not limited to those obvious scenarios. Employees often allege retaliation based on reduced work hours, undesirable schedule changes, loss of overtime opportunities, assignment to less favorable shifts or duties, negative performance evaluations, or disciplinary write-ups that reference attendance issues tied to paid sick leave use.
Other commonly alleged retaliatory or discriminatory actions include counting paid sick leave as an “occurrence” under an attendance policy, accelerating discipline under a progressive discipline system after sick leave use, denying promotions or transfers, placing the employee on a performance improvement plan shortly after leave use, or subjecting the employee to heightened scrutiny, monitoring, or hostile treatment by supervisors. Even subtle changes, such as excluding an employee from meetings, reducing responsibilities, or singling the employee out for criticism, may be cited as retaliatory or discriminatory if they follow closely on the heels of, or stem from, protected activity.
Importantly, retaliation claims do not require proof that paid sick leave was the sole reason for the employer’s action. It is sufficient for an employee to allege that paid sick leave use was a substantial motivating factor. Because of the statutory presumption, employers bear the burden to show that adverse actions taken within the protected window were based on legitimate, well-documented reasons wholly unrelated to the legally protected conduct, and that the adverse action would have been taken even in the absence of the employee’s protected conduct.
For this reason, employers must exercise caution when making disciplinary or scheduling decisions soon after an employee engages in these activites. Even lawful business decisions may be difficult to defend if they appear reactive, inconsistent with past practice or established policy, or insufficiently documented.
Finally, the anti-retaliation protections apply regardless of whether the paid sick leave ultimately turns out to have been misused. While employers may address legitimate misuse, actions taken in response must be reasonable, proportionate, and carefully documented, and must not be designed to deter or chill the lawful exercise of paid sick leave rights.
Remedies, Penalties, and Enforcement of Paid Sick Leave Violations
The primary enforcement mechanism for paid sick leave violations is through the California Labor Commissioner (DLSE). Labor Code section 248.5 authorizes the Labor Commissioner to investigate violations of the paid sick leave statute and to order relief.
If the Labor Commissioner determines that an employer has violated the paid sick leave statute, the Commissioner may order equitable relief, including reinstatement and backpay, and may assess administrative penalties as authorized by statute. Where paid sick days were unlawfully withheld, the administrative penalty must include an amount equal to three times the dollar value of the paid sick days withheld, or $250, whichever is greater, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $4,000. (Lab. Code § 248.5(b)(2).)
If the violation results in other harm to the employee, such as discharge from employment or other violations of the employee’s statutory rights, the administrative penalty may also include $50 for each day or portion of a day the violation occurred or continued, up to an aggregate penalty of $4,000. (Lab. Code § 248.5(b)(3).) These administrative remedies are in addition to, and do not preclude, other relief authorized by law.
Paid sick leave violations may also be pursued through representative actions under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Because paid sick leave obligations arise under the Labor Code, most paid sick leave violations, including certain failures relating to accrual, use, notice, interference, and retaliation, may qualify as PAGA violations. Under PAGA, an aggrieved employee may seek civil penalties on behalf of the State of California and affected employees, along with reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Retaliation related to paid sick leave use may also give rise to independent statutory or common-law claims, depending on the facts and circumstances, such as under Labor Code section 1102.5.
How “Kin Care” Integrates with Paid Sick Leave
California’s paid sick leave law operates alongside the Kin Care statute, found at Labor Code section 233, which long predates the statewide paid sick leave framework. The Kin Care law was originally enacted in 2000, at a time when California did not require employers to provide paid sick leave at all. Its purpose was to ensure that when employers voluntarily offered sick leave, employees could use a portion of that leave not only for their own illness, but also to care for ill family members.
Kin Care does not create additional leave. Instead, it limits how employers may restrict the use of sick leave benefits they already provide. Specifically, Labor Code section 233 requires employers to permit employees to use at least one-half of their annual sick leave accrual to attend to the illness of a qualifying family member. This requirement applies to employer-provided sick leave policies and to PTO policies that function, in whole or in part, as sick leave.
With the enactment of California’s statewide paid sick leave law, the practical operation of Kin Care has evolved. Because Labor Code section 246.5 already permits paid sick leave to be used for family care, most compliant paid sick leave policies will automatically satisfy Kin Care requirements. Kin Care remains particularly relevant, however, where employers provide more generous sick leave or PTO benefits than the statutory minimums, or where policies differentiate between “personal” sick leave and family care use.
Kin Care also contains its own anti-retaliation and anti-discipline protections, prohibiting employers from denying sick leave use or taking adverse action against employees for using sick leave to care for family members. These protections operate independently of, and in addition to, the anti-retaliation provisions of the paid sick leave statute.
Final Thoughts
Employers should periodically review and update their policies and practices to ensure compliance with Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, the Kin Care statute, and DLSE guidance. When compliance questions or unusual circumstances arise, caution and consultation with a knowledgeable and experienced California employment attorney is advisable.
Resource Links: