Cal. Codes » Labor Code / DIVISION 4. WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND INSURANCE / PART 1. SCOPE AND OPERATION / CHAPTER 2. Employers, Employees, and Dependents / ARTICLE 1. Employers
California Codes

Cal. Labor Code § 3300 (2026)

Employers

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

As used in this division, “employer” means:

(a)The State and every State agency.

(b)Each county, city, district, and all public and quasi public corporations and public agencies therein.

(c)Every person including any public service corporation, which has any natural person in service.

(d)The legal representative of any deceased employer.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2025 · leading case: Wells v. One2One Learning Found., 141 P.3d 225 (Cal. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Wells v. One2One Learning Found., 141 P.3d 225 (Cal. 2006). · cites it 2× “" In division four of the Labor Code, concerning workers' compensation insurance, a covered "employer" is defined to include "[e]very person including any public service corporation, which has any natural person in service" (Lab.Code, § 3300, subd. (c), italics added) and,…”
Brassinga v. City of Mountain View, 63 Cal. Comp. Cases 987 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998). “” (Lab. Code, § 3300, italics added.) Mountain View concedes that the Regional Team was not a “joint powers agency” with independent existence, but it characterizes the Regional Team as a “ ‘joint enterprise’ arising out of a ‘mutual aid agreement’ of the type authorized by Gov.”
People v. Hamilton, 241 Cal. Rptr. 3d 765 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). “" ( Lab. Code, § 3300.) As a federal agency, the United States Post Office does not fall under any of the categories set forth in the statutory definition of "employer.”
Lopez v. Univ. Partners, 62 Cal. Comp. Cases 667 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997). “” Labor Code section 3300 provides: “As used in this division, ‘employer’ means: “(a) The State and every State agency.”
An Indep. Home Support Serv., Inc. v. Superior Court, 71 Cal. Comp. Cases 1779 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006). “” (Lab. Code, § 3300, subd. (c), italics added.”
Jablonski v. Royal Globe Ins., 53 Cal. Comp. Cases 402 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988). “2 Labor Code section 3300 defines an “employer” as various public agencies and “[e]very person including any public service corporation, which has any natural person in service.”
Ankeny v. Meyer (In Re Ankeny), 184 B.R. 64 (9th Cir. BAP 1995). “697, 704 (1984) (workers’ compensation law provides for coverage based on dual employment relationship; Cal.Labor Code § 3300 et seq.). Statutory construction requires that individual portions of a statute should be harmonized with each other, and the entire statute should be…”
Healy v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 258 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1953). “The city is an employer within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Act (Lab. Code, § 3300), and the commission, before allowing the city credit for pension payments, should have determined whether Healy would thereby be compelled to contribute to the cost of his…”
Van Horn v. Indus. Accident Comm'n, 219 Cal. App. 2d 457 (Cal. Ct. App. 1963). “(Lab. Code, § 3300.) If services are voluntarily rendered without compensation, there is no employment relationship.”
Div. of Labor Law Enf't v. El Camino Hosp. Dist., 8 Cal. App. Supp. 3d 30 (Cal. App. Dep’t Super. Ct. 1970). “To accomplish this purpose, the Legislature provided for certain specified penalties, and also provided for a right of action by the employee against his employer. Since section 203 establishes a right of action, it should not be construed as including the government, at least…”
Pennington v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd., 36 Cal. Comp. Cases 559 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971). “The county is an employer subject to the provisions of the workmen’s compensation law (Lab. Code, § 3300). Labor Code section 4850 provides in pertinent part: “Whenever any city policeman, city fireman, county fireman, fireman of any fire district, sheriff or any officer or…”
People v. Hamilton (Cal. Ct. App. 2018). “" (Lab. Code, § 3300.) As a federal agency, the United States Post Office does not fall under any of the categories set forth in the statutory definition of "employer.”
Show all 14 citing cases →
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.