California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 246.5 (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)Upon the oral or written request of an employee, an employer shall provide paid sick days for the following purposes:

(1)Diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or an employee’s family member.

(2)(A)For leave taken or requested on or before December 31, 2024, for a purpose described in subdivision (c) of Section 230 or subdivision (a) of Section 230.1.

(B)For leave taken or requested on or after January 1, 2025, for a purpose described in paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subdivision (a) of, or subdivision (b) of, Section 12945.8 of the Government Code.

(C)For leave taken or requested on or after January 1, 2026, for a purpose described in paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 12945.8 of the Government Code.

(3)(A)For an employee who is an agricultural employee, as defined in Section 9110, who works outside and who is entitled to paid sick days under this article, to avoid smoke, heat, or flooding conditions created by a local or state emergency, including, but not limited to, when the employee’s worksite is closed due to the smoke, heat, or flooding conditions.

(B)For purposes of this paragraph, there are smoke, heat, or flood conditions created by a local or state emergency if the Governor proclaims a state of emergency pursuant to Section 8625 of the Government Code, or a local emergency is proclaimed pursuant to Section 8630 of the Government Code, due to smoke, heat, or flooding conditions that prevent agricultural employees from working.

(b)An employer shall not require as a condition of using paid sick days that the employee search for or find a replacement worker to cover the days during which the employee uses paid sick days.

(c)(1)An employer shall not deny an employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using accrued sick days, attempting to exercise the right to use accrued sick days, filing a complaint with the department or alleging a violation of this article, cooperating in an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this article, or opposing any policy or practice or act that is prohibited by this article.

(2)There shall be a rebuttable presumption of unlawful retaliation if an employer denies an employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharges, threatens to discharge, demotes, suspends, or in any manner discriminates against an employee within 30 days of any of the following:

(A)The filing of a complaint by the employee with the Labor Commissioner or alleging a violation of this article.

(B)The cooperation of an employee with an investigation or prosecution of an alleged violation of this article.

(C)Opposition by the employee to a policy, practice, or act that is prohibited by this article.

(d)Notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 245.5, for purposes of this section, “employee” shall include an employee described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 245.5.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2017–2025 · leading case: Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Julie Su, 41 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. 2022).
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Julie Su, 41 F.4th 1147 (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 246.5 (a)(1). This aligns with RUIA’s encompassing conception of “sickness,” as we described it above.”
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Su, 289 F. Supp. 3d 1130 (E.D. Cal. 2017). “See Cal. Lab Code § 246.5 (a) ("(1) Diagnosis, care, or treatment of an existing health condition of, or preventive care for, an employee or an employee's family member.”
White v. Capital One (E.D. Cal. 2024). · cites it 6× “5; second cause of action for harassment under the California 28 Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) based on White’s pregnancy and breastfeeding; 1 fourth cause of action for harassment under FEHA based on White’s physical disability; seventh 2 cause of action for…”
Div. of Labor Standards Enf't v. Save Mart Supermarkets (C.D. Cal. 2022). · cites it 4× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 246.5 (a). The Division asserts 2 three causes of action: a claim arising directly from section 246.”
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Julie Su (9th Cir. 2022). · cites it 2× “” Cal. Lab. Code § 246.5 (a)(1). This aligns with RUIA’s encompassing conception of “sickness,” as we described it above.”
Henry Napel v. Phillips 66 Co. (C.D. Cal. 2025). · cites it 2× “2 (“CFRA”), against Phillips 66; e paid sick leave discrimination in violation of Cal. Labor Code § 246.5 , against Phillips 66; e paid sick leave retaliation in violation of Cal.”
Wilkin v. Cmty. Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula CA4/3 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “Labor Code section 246.5, subdivision (c)(1) provides in part: “An employer shall not deny an employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using accrued sick days.”
Wilkin v. Cmty. Hosp. of the Monterey Peninsula (Cal. Ct. App. 2021). “Labor Code section 246.5, subdivision (c)(1) provides in part: “An employer shall not deny an employee the right to use accrued sick days, discharge, threaten to discharge, demote, suspend, or in any manner discriminate against an employee for using accrued sick days.”
Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. State of CA (E.D. Cal. 2021). “” Cal. Labor Code § 246.5 (a). The court ruled that the Railroad Unemployment 16 Insurance Act (RUIA) preempts the California Act only to the extent the California Act provides 17 paid sick leave for a railroad employee’s own personal sickness; but RUIA does not preempt the 18…”
Thomasson v. Sentinel Transp., LLC (E.D. Cal. 2022). “See Cal. Labor Code § 246.5 . 20 Plaintiff claims that Defendant violated California Labor Code sections 246 and 246.”
Lynch v. Ulta Salon, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2023). “) 26 27 1 The Court notes Plaintiff also cites California Labor Code § 246.5(c)(1) as a basis for Claim One, which similarly alleges Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for his use of sick leave.”
Benyamin v. TopGolf Payroll Servs., LLC (E.D. Cal. 2024). “UCL Claim 16 Plaintiff’s UCL claim is predicated on defendants’ alleged Labor Code violations 17 underlying plaintiff’s claims 1 through 7, as well as on defendants’ alleged failure to pay sick 18 leave wages in violation of California Labor Code § 246.5 (See Doc. No.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 246.5(a) — 1 case
Div. of Labor Standards Enf't v. Save Mart Supermarkets (C.D. Cal. 2022). “” Cal. Lab. Code § 246.5 (a). The Division asserts 2 three causes of action: a claim arising directly from section 246.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 246.5(c)(1) — 1 case
Lynch v. Ulta Salon, Inc. (E.D. Cal. 2023). “) 26 27 1 The Court notes Plaintiff also cites California Labor Code § 246.5(c)(1) as a basis for Claim One, which similarly alleges Defendant retaliated against Plaintiff for his use of sick leave.”
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.