California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 1402 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)An employer who fails to give notice as required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 1401 before ordering a mass layoff, relocation, or termination is liable to each employee entitled to notice who lost his or her employment for:

(1)Back pay at the average regular rate of compensation received by the employee during the last three years of his or her employment, or the employee’s final rate of compensation, whichever is higher.

(2)The value of the cost of any benefits to which the employee would have been entitled had his or her employment not been lost, including the cost of any medical expenses incurred by the employee that would have been covered under an employee benefit plan.

(b)Liability under this section is calculated for the period of the employer’s violation, up to a maximum of 60 days, or one-half the number of days that the employee was employed by the employer, whichever period is smaller.

(c)The amount of an employer’s liability under subdivision (a) is reduced by the following:

(1)Any wages, except vacation moneys accrued prior to the period of the employer’s violation, paid by the employer to the employee during the period of the employer’s violation.

(2)Any voluntary and unconditional payments made by the employer to the employee that were not required to satisfy any legal obligation.

(3)Any payments by the employer to a third party or trustee, such as premiums for health benefits or payments to a defined contribution pension plan, on behalf of and attributable to the employee for the period of the violation.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2020–2021 · leading case: Philips v. Munchery Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020).
Philips v. Munchery Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2020). “§ 2104 (a); Cal. Lab. Code § 1402 (a),(b). 8 For the reasons previously stated with regard to the commonality requirement under Rule 9 23(a), the Court is satisfied that the core common question in this case—whether Munchery 10 provided the requisite written notice to Employees…”
Philips v. Munchery Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “§ 2104 (a); Cal. Lab. Code § 1402 (a),(b). 6 Plaintiffs valued their claims at $1.”
Gunderson v. Alta Devices, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021). “§ 2104 (a)(1)-(2); Cal. Lab. Code § 1402 (a)(1). 23 Because Defendant did not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, the evidence 24 that Plaintiffs submitted on damages is uncontroverted.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.