California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 233 (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)Any employer who provides sick leave for employees shall permit an employee to use in any calendar year the employee’s accrued and available sick leave entitlement, in an amount not less than the sick leave that would be accrued during six months at the employee’s then current rate of entitlement, for the reasons specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5. The designation of sick leave taken for these reasons shall be made at the sole discretion of the employee. This section does not extend the maximum period of leave to which an employee is entitled under Section 12945.2 of the Government Code or under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. Sec. 2601 et seq.), regardless of whether the employee receives sick leave compensation during that leave.

(b)As used in this section:

(1)“Employer” means any person employing another under any appointment or contract of hire and includes the state, political subdivisions of the state, and municipalities.

(2)“Family member” has the same meaning as defined in Section 245.5.

(3)(A)“Sick leave” means accrued increments of compensated leave provided by an employer to an employee as a benefit of the employment for use by the employee during an absence from the employment for any of the reasons specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5.

(B)“Sick leave” does not include any benefit provided under an employee welfare benefit plan subject to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-406, as amended) and does not include any insurance benefit, workers’ compensation benefit, unemployment compensation disability benefit, or benefit not payable from the employer’s general assets.

(c)An employer shall not deny an employee the right to use sick leave or discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to use, sick leave to attend to an illness or the preventive care of a family member, or for any other reason specified in subdivision (a) of Section 246.5.

(d)Any employee aggrieved by a violation of this section shall be entitled to reinstatement and actual damages or one day’s pay, whichever is greater, and to appropriate equitable relief.

(e)Upon the filing of a complaint by an employee, the Labor Commissioner shall enforce this section in accordance with Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 79) of Division 1, including, but not limited to, Sections 92, 96.7, 98, and 98.1 to 98.8, inclusive. Alternatively, an employee may bring a civil action for the remedies provided by this section in a court of competent jurisdiction. If the employee prevails, the court may award reasonable attorney’s fees.

(f)The rights and remedies specified in this section are cumulative and nonexclusive and are in addition to any other rights or remedies afforded by contract or under other law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 27 cases (18 in the last 5 years), 2003–2025 · leading case: Airline Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. United Airlines, Inc., 57 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2476 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Airline Pilots Ass'n Int'l v. United Airlines, Inc., 57 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2476 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “INTRODUCTION California’s Kin Care Law (Lab. Code, § 233) requires employers who provide paid sick leave to their employees to allow employees to use sick leave to care for family members.”

Gutierrez v. RWD Tech., Inc., 279 F. Supp. 2d 1223 (E.D. Cal. 2003). “See Cal. Lab. Code § 233 (e) (providing that when an employee files a complaint, “the Labor Commissioner shall enforce the provisions of this section in accordance with .”

Torstrup-Lanham v. Gov't Employees Ins., 284 F. App'x 460 (9th Cir. 2008). · cites it 7× “*462 MEMORANDUM *** In this diversity case, Cynthia Torstrup-Lanham appeals from the district court’s order granting Government Employees Insurance Company’s (“Geico”) motion for summary judgment as to Torstrup-Lanham’s claims under California Labor Code §§ 233 and 234, 1 and…”

Elizabeth Claiborne v. The Hertz Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 3× “Gov’t Code § 12940(n)); (4) retaliation for requesting accommodations/opposing practices forbidden by FEHA; (5) hostile work environment in violation of FEHA; (6) failure to prevent discrimination harassment and retaliation in violation of FEHA; (7) interference and retaliation…”

Taylor v. Long Beach Mem'l Med. Ctr. CA2/8 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “(Lab. Code, § 233, subd. (a).) 6 Maldonado called her repeatedly, and when Taylor finally took one of the calls, Maldonado raised her voice and spoke in a demeaning manner.”

David Wagner v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2023). · cites it 2× “) 13 Wagner sued Wal-Mart in state court for (1) violation of the California 2022 14 COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave laws, (2) violation of state sick leave laws, 15 Cal. Lab. Code §§ 233 , 234, 236.5, 2810.”

Thomasson v. Sentinel Transp., LLC (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “aintiff’s Second Cause of Action for Violation of Labor Code §§ 233 and 234 2 Defendant moves for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s second claim, which alleges that 3 Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff by claiming that his absence from work was due to Plaintiff 4 providing…”

Cotterman v. Jan X-Ray Servs., Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 2× “Seventh Cause of Acton: Denial of and Discrimination Based Upon the Use of Sick Leave in Violation of California Labor Code §§ 233, 2 234, and 246.”

Wilkin v. Cmty. Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “” 7 Labor Code section 233 provides in relevant part: “An employer shall not deny an employee the right to use sick leave or discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to…”

Wilkin v. Cmty. Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “” 7 Labor Code section 233 provides in relevant part: “An employer shall not deny an employee the right to use sick leave or discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using, or attempting to exercise the right to…”

Birrueta v. UMA Enter. CA2/2 (Cal. Ct. App. 2023). “Complaint In September 2020, plaintiff sued UMA for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, denial of sick leave, and discrimination based on the use of sick leave (Lab. Code, §§ 233, 234, 246.5), retaliation for disclosing violations of law (Lab.”

Show all 27 citing cases →

— Cal. Labor Code § 233(c) — 1 case

White v. Capital One (E.D. Cal. 2025).

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.