ASAP

ASAP

San Diego, California Revises Paid Sick and Safe Standards to Better Align with State Law, Strengthen Enforcement

By Sebastian Chilco, Deidra Nguyen, and Adam Fiss

  • 3 minute read

On October 30, 2026, the mayor of San Diego, California signed Ordinance 22151, which, effective November 29, 2026, revises San Diego’s paid sick and safe time standards to better align with California’s statewide law, the Healthy Workplaces Healthy Families Act (HWHFA), and strengthen local enforcement efforts. For employers covered by both San Diego’s ordinance and California’s HWHFA, the amendments should have minimal to no impact on their existing policies, practices, and procedures. They could, however, have more of an impact on employers not subject to state law whose systems are set up according only to San Diego’s standards. Below we briefly highlight the changes.

  • Employee Exceptions: The amendments remove an exception for employees with a disability that could (previously) be paid a subminimum wage under state law. Additionally, for already-excluded independent contractors, the amendments clarify that workers are presumed to be employees unless a business overcomes the presumption according to state law.
  • Family Members: Though still not identical to the HWHFA, the amendments essentially mirror who qualifies as a “traditional” family member under the ordinance, and will expressly allow, like state law, employees to use leave for a designated person (employers can limit designations to one per 12-month period).
  • Caps on Accrual, Carryover, and Use / Frontloading: Like state law, San Diego’s revised ordinance will address permitted caps an employer can implement in terms of both “hours” and “days.” Employers can implement an annual use cap of 40 hours or 5 days, whichever is greater; and they can adopt a temporary accrual cap that is the greater of 80 hours or 10 days (which, if adopted by an employer, would also be the annual carryover cap). As under state law, employers can avoid carryover requirements if they annually grant 40 hours or 5 days of leave, whichever is greater.
  • Covered Uses: The amendments revise the reasons an employee can use leave for sick, safe, and other purposes. Most sick time reasons will now mirror state law (diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition, preventive care), though San Diego will continue to also allow leave use for a physical or mental illness, injury, or medical condition. The amendments replace existing safe time with, essentially, the same reasons employees can use HWHFA leave for safe time purposes (see here & here). Additionally, like state law, serving on an inquest or jury will qualify as one other reason employees can use leave under San Diego’s ordinance (in addition to ordinance-specific coverage for closure of business, school, or place of care due to a public health emergency).
  • Documentation: San Diego’s ordinance will now include “to the extent permitted by California law” when discussing employers’ ability to request documentation to support an employee’s use of leave on four or more consecutive workdays.
  • Rate of Pay: Although San Diego’s ordinance does not apply to all types of “exempt” employees – e.g., properly classified executive, administrative, professional, and outside sales employees are excluded – it does dictate how employers must pay other types of “exempt” employees to whom the ordinance does apply. The revised standard will mirror the HWHFA, requiring that they be paid for paid sick and safe time use in the same manner as the employer pays employees when they use other types of paid leave.
  • Reinstatement: The ordinance currently requires that, if employment ends but an employee is rehired within 6 months, unused paid sick and safe time they had when employment ended must be reinstated. The amendments extend the reinstatement timeframe to align with state law: 1 year.
  • Enforcement: Amendments expressly permit San Diego’s Office of Labor Standards and Enforcement to refer violations to the City Attorney to file a lawsuit against an allegedly noncompliant employer.
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.

Learn how we can help you confidently address your unique workplace legal challenges.