Governor Signs Amendments to Expand, and Better Align, Paid Sick Leave Requirements Throughout California

  • Increases the number of job-protected paid leave hours employees can receive and use each year under state law.
  • Extends some obligations and protections to employees covered by a CBA.
  • Creates a partial preemption of local standards.

On October 4, 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 616, which arguably results in the most significant changes to California’s statewide paid sick and safe leave law since the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act (HWHFA) was first enacted in 2014.

Effective January 1, 2024, the amendment increases the number of job-protected paid leave hours employees can take each year under state law. When an employer implements an accrual and carryover policy, this change also increases how much paid leave employees can accrue and carry over from year to year. Likewise, when an employer uses a frontload policy, the amendment increases the amount of paid leave employers must annually frontload. Moreover, SB 616 extends a few HWHFA legal protections to certain unionized employees who are not currently covered by the HWHFA (and will continue not to be covered aside from these limited rights).

Additionally, the amendment to the HWHFA establishes greater uniformity statewide concerning some aspects of paid sick and safe leave via partial preemption of local ordinances. While employers with operations in multiple California cities may welcome this particular change, the impact of the new limited preemption provision remains to be seen.

Finally, the law affects how companies can comply with the law via existing paid leave policies, tweaks standards in some lesser-known parts of the HWHFA, and makes “official” exclusions from the law that were established in a legal challenge that made its way through the courts. Arguably, the changes will most affect employers not currently subject to local ordinances requiring paid sick and/or safe leave, or other types of paid time off.1 However, even employers already subject to one or more local laws might feel SB 616’s effect; if not immediately, eventually.

Accrual, Carry-Over, Frontloading, and Use Caps: Currently, an employee’s banked, accrued paid sick and safe leave may be capped at 48 hours or 6 days – whichever is greater. Due to SB 616’s amendments, the amount will increase to the greater of 80 hours or 10 days. California’s accrual limitation is unique in that it is not a finite annual or overall cap, but rather a temporary one, i.e., once an employee accumulates an amount of leave that equals the “cap” amount, they stop accruing but can immediately restart accruing leave when they use leave and their banked amount falls below the cap. The temporary accrual cap also practically functions as a cap on the amount of unused leave employees can carry over from one year to the next. This is because under the HWHFA “[a]ccrued paid sick days shall carry over to the following year of employment.”

In lieu of carryover, however, the HWHFA allows employers to frontload a specific amount of paid leave each year. Currently, the law requires employers to frontload 24 hours or 3 days – whichever is greater – but under SB 616 that amount will increase to the greater of 40 hours or 5 days. It is important to note that while state law allows employers to frontload leave annually and avoid carryover, that is not always the outcome under similar local ordinances throughout California. Under some local laws, employers may still need to carry over frontloaded leave because that is what the ordinance expressly requires or because the jurisdiction treats any “frontload” as an advance on accrual.

SB 616’s changes also impact two related HWHFA provisions that are less commonly discussed with regard to California’s paid sick and safe time law. First, in lieu of using the standard one leave hour for every 30 hours worked accrual rate, the current version of HWHFA allows employers to use a different accrual rate so long as employees accrue leave on a regular basis resulting in them having no less than 24 hours of accrued leave by the completion of their 120th day of employment and having that same amount by the completion of the 120th day in each subsequent year. SB 616 changes this accrual exception to require that, additionally, employees have accrued no less than 40 hours of leave by the 200th day of employment and that same amount by the 200th day in each subsequent year.

Second, when frontloading is used to comply with paid sick and safe time obligations, many paid sick and safe time laws require the frontload distribution to occur when employment begins, i.e., on day 1. California’s existing state law, however, allows employers to provide no less than 24 hours or 3 days of paid leave for the employee to use by the time they complete their 120th day of employment. Essentially, this option allows employers to impose a lengthier waiting period for new hires when frontloading is used than what the HWHFA otherwise allows (an 89-day waiting period, per the state labor department) when accrual is used. As a result of SB 616, in addition to providing the frontloaded 24 hours/3 days of paid leave by the 120-day mark, employers must also ensure that the employee has no less than a total of 40 hours or 5 days of paid leave (between the initial 120 day frontloading and the subsequent 200 day frontloading) for the employee to use by the time they complete their 200th day of employment. This adds another interesting twist that we do not see with other paid sick and safe time laws: the ability to provide the frontloaded amount in a piecemeal fashion rather than provide the entire amount at one time.

Currently, the HWHFA allows employers to limit employees’ paid leave use per year to 24 hours or 3 days, whichever is greater. SB 616 increases the permitted annual use cap to the greater of 40 hours or 5 days.

Covered & Not Covered Employers and Employees. Currently, the HWHFA does not apply to employees covered by a valid collective bargaining agreement (CBA) if the CBA expressly provides for employees’ wages, hours of work, and working conditions; provides paid sick days, paid leave or paid time off; requires final and binding arbitration of disputes concerning paid leave; provides premium wage rates for all overtime hours worked; and establishes a regular hourly rate of pay of not less than 30 percent more than the state minimum wage rate. SB 616’s amendments, however, extend some of the HWHFA’s protections to these particular employees:

  • Covered Uses: The CBA must allow paid leave to be used for diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or family member. Additionally, if an employee is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, the CBA must allow paid leave use to: obtain or attempt to obtain any relief, including, but not limited to, a temporary restraining order, restraining order, or other injunctive relief, to help ensure the health, safety, or welfare of the victim or their child; for medical attention for injuries; to obtain services from a domestic violence shelter, program, or rape crisis center; for psychological counseling; and to participate in safety planning and take other actions to increase safety from future domestic violence, sexual assault, or stalking, including temporary or permanent relocation.
  • Replacement Worker Prohibition: As a condition of taking paid leave for a covered reason, employers cannot require an employee to search for or find a replacement worker to cover the day(s) they will be absent from work.
  • Anti-Retaliation: Employers cannot deny an employee the right to use sick days, or discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using or attempting to use sick days; filing a complaint with the state labor department or alleging a violation of the HWHFA; cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged HWHFA violation; or opposing any policy or practice or act that the HWHFA prohibits. A rebuttable presumption of retaliation applies if an employer takes prohibited action within 30 days of the employee’s filing of a complaint with the state labor department or alleging a violation, cooperating with an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation, and/or opposing an unlawful policy, practice, or act.

Additionally, SB 616 excludes employees and employers covered by the federal Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA). Essentially, this change expressly incorporates into the law the outcome of litigation against the state by the rail industry, which successfully argued that the RUIA preempted California law.

Partial Preemption of Local Standards: SB 616 adds new subdivision (r) to California Labor Code section 246, which provides that “Subdivisions (g), (h), (i), (l), (m), and (n) [of section 246] shall preempt any local ordinance to the contrary.” Generally, these subdivisions cover the following obligations or practices:

  • End of Employment & Reinstatement: Employers need not cash out unused paid sick and safe leave when employment ends but must reinstate such unused leave for employees rehired within one year of the date of separation unless leave was cashed out.
  • Advance Leave: At their discretion and with proper documentation, employers can advance leave to employees before they accrue it.
  • Paystubs: The amount of paid leave available for HWHFA sick and safe time use must be on an itemized paystub or in a separate writing provided on payday.
  • Rate of Pay: The standards employers must use to calculate the rate of pay for paid sick and safe time use for employees who are non-exempt and exempt (which the state labor department limits only to those subject to the executive, administrative, and professional exemption).
  • Employee Notice: How much notice employees must provide their employer for foreseeable and unforeseeable absences.
  • When Leave Must Be Paid: Employers must compensate employees for paid sick and safe leave they use by the payday for the pay period after the pay period in which the employee uses leave.

Although hearing the word “preemption” might cause some ears to perk up, practically speaking the preemption is likely to have a limited effect. For example, no local ordinance requires employers to cash out unused paid sick and safe leave when employment ends. Only two ordinances discuss advancing leave; one contains language identical to state law and the other was not so different that employers struggled to harmonize state and local requirements. There is only one local ordinance with a paystub requirement and it is identical to state law. Although there are a few instances in which an employer might need to determine whether state or local law provides the more beneficial pay rate calculation, and apply that standard when compensating an employee when they use leave, state law already is often the more employee-friendly calculation. Given the rate of pay calculations for those other than exempt executive, administrative, or professional employees can be challenging mathematically, the benefit of a uniform standard might be seen less favorably because of increased costs it might generate. As there is little deviation between state law and the local ordinances concerning advance notice employees must provide to use leave, not much should change. Finally, concerning the timing of providing pay for paid sick and safe leave use, of the local ordinances that expressly address the issue – not all do –  all already use the same timeframe as state law. Assuming a local jurisdiction whose law is silent on the issue were to suggest that payment was due earlier, then SB 616 would have the effect of setting a consistent standard statewide.

Using Existing Policies: SB 616 amends the HWHFA provision concerning so-called “grandfathered plans.” When the HWHFA was enacted in 2014 – it became effective the next year – employers did not need to provide additional paid leave if they had a paid sick or paid time off plan in effect before January 1, 2015 that included leave employees could use for the same reasons and under the same conditions as the HWHFA requires, subject to a few additional requirements, like employees being able to accrue no less than one day or eight hours of paid leave within three months of each year, and employees being able to earn at least three days or 24 hours of paid leave within nine months of employment. Moreover, per the “grandfather clause,” if an employer modifies accrual standards in its policy after January 1, 2015, it needs to either adhere to the HWHFA’s accrual standards or frontload the amount the HWHFA requires unless the employer increases its policy’s accrual amount or rate. As with annual use caps, SB 616 amends this provision to increase the amount of leave employees must be able to accrue from three days or 24 hours to 5 days or 40 hours. Additionally, it accelerates the timeframe for them to accrue that amount of leave from within nine months of employment to within six months of employment. For unknown reasons, the “grandfather clause” continues to reference January 1, 2015, instead of January 1, 2024. If leaving in the 2015 date is intentional, that might raise concerns about retroactivity given amendments are meant to be prospective “unless expressly so declared” by the legislature, which did not occur in SB 616. Another possibility, however, is that the 2015 reference is an unintentional oversight, as SB 616 was amended multiple times throughout the legislative process, and that when they return in 2024 legislators will retroactively change the 2015 reference to 2024.

Next Steps. For employers whose paid leave benefits do not already meet, or exceed, SB 616’s requirements, there remains limited time to review and revise policies and practices, adjust payroll standards, and educate employees on enhanced benefits or protections. Employers are not the only party fighting the clock, however. The eight local jurisdictions with existing paid leave ordinances do not have a lot of time to determine whether, and how, to respond to SB 616’s partial preemption. All, of course, will be looking for guidance from the state labor department, which itself will be pressed for time to educate stakeholders on how this enacted bill, and countless others new or amended laws, will impact the Golden State in 2024.

See Footnotes

1 Local ordinances exist in Berkeley, Emeryville, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood.

Information contained in this publication is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or opinion, nor is it a substitute for the professional judgment of an attorney.