(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
Elizabeth Claiborne v. The Hertz Corp., No. 2:24-cv-05571 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 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…”
White v. Capital One, No. 1:24-cv-00633 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2025).
“Labor Code § 233(c) Retaliation (Nineteenth Cause of Action) 10 Finally, Defendant Capital One moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s nineteenth cause of action, 11 retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 233(c) on the basis that it is procedurally defective.”
Edwin Casimere v. Int'l Line Builders Inc., No. 5:23-cv-02230 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 4, 2024).
“1 various state law claims related to Plaintiff’s alleged wrongful termination from ILB: 2 (1) Violation of the California Family Rights Act; (2) Illegal Retaliatory Discharge in 3 Violation of California Labor Code §§ 233, 246.5; (3) Wrongful Termination in 4 Violation of…”
Garcia v. Start Yoshi, Inc., No. 5:23-cv-06518 (N.D. Cal. May 17, 2024).
“He claims that Yoshi unlawfully terminated his employment because he took 4 several days off for jury duty (in violation of California Labor Code § 230), and because he took a 5 day of sick leave (in violation of California Labor Code § 233).”
Reyes v. Costco Wholesale Corp., No. 2:24-cv-00300, 2024 WL 3105624 (E.D. Cal. June 24, 2024).
“Cal. Lab. Code § 233 . Employers are required to calculate accrued 23 sick pay for nonexempt employees at “the regular rate of pay for the workweek in which the 24 employee uses paid sick leave, whether or not the employee actually works overtime in that 25 workweek” or “by…”
Balladarez v. Vitro Flat Glass, LLC, No. 1:20-cv-00957 (E.D. Cal. June 28, 2024).
“Code §§ 201-203); (7) Failure to Adopt a Compliant Sick Pay/Paid Time Off Policy (Lab. Code §§ 233, 234, 246); (8) Violation of Unfair Competition Law (Bus.”
Rosalba Hernandez v. Amcor Flexibles LLC, No. 2:24-cv-08574 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2024).
“; (7) retaliation for using sick leave in violation of Cal. Labor Code §§ 233 , 245.6, et seq.; (8) retaliation in violation of Cal.”
Anderson v. Optum Servs., Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00535 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2024).
“2 ; (7) failure to prevent discrimination, harassment and/or retaliation in 12 violation of FEHA; (8) violation of the Kin Care Law, Cal. Lab. Code §§ 233 , 246.5; (9) 13 wrongful termination in violation of public policy; (10) failure to pay all earned wages in 14 violation of…”
David Wagner v. Wal-Mart Assocs., Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00030 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 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.”
Ana Areopaja v. Morrison Mgmt. Specialists Inc, No. 2:21-cv-04739 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2023).
“See Cal. Lab. Code § 233 . Specifically, 22 § 233(c) provides that an employer cannot “deny an 23 employee the right to use sick leave or discharge, 24 threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner 25 discriminate against an employee for using, or 26 attempting to…”
Cal. Labor Code § 233(c): 1 case
White v. Capital One, No. 1:24-cv-00633 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2025).
“Labor Code § 233(c) Retaliation (Nineteenth Cause of Action) 10 Finally, Defendant Capital One moves to dismiss Plaintiff’s nineteenth cause of action, 11 retaliation in violation of Labor Code § 233(c) on the basis that it is procedurally defective.”
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.