(a)Every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.
(b)On multiemployer worksites, both construction and nonconstruction, citations may be issued only to the following categories of employers when the division has evidence that an employee was exposed to a hazard in violation of any requirement enforceable by the division:
(1)The employer whose
employees were exposed to the hazard (the exposing employer).
(2)The employer who actually created the hazard (the creating employer).
(3)The employer who was responsible, by contract or through actual practice, for safety and health conditions on the worksite, which is the employer who had the authority for ensuring that the hazardous condition is corrected (the controlling employer).
(4)The employer who had the responsibility for actually correcting the hazard (the correcting employer).
The employers listed in paragraphs (2) to (4), inclusive, of this subdivision may be cited regardless of whether their own employees were exposed to the hazard.
(c)It is the intent of the Legislature, in adding subdivision
(b) to this section, to codify existing regulations with respect to the responsibility of employers at multiemployer worksites. Subdivision (b) of this section is declaratory of existing law and shall not be construed or interpreted as creating a new law or as modifying or changing an existing law.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
55
cases (
18 in the last 5 years), 1947–2026 · leading case:
Elsner v. Uveges, 102 P.3d 915 (Cal. 2004).
Cadena v. City of San Diego CA4/1 (Cal. Ct. App. 2026).
“The risk Employees would suffer an injury from an unsafe workplace was a risk inherent in their employment by the City.”
Allos v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist. (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
“As Allos notes in her brief, Labor Code section 6400, subdivision (a) states, “Every employer shall furnish employment and a place of employment that is safe and healthful for the employees therein.”
Hollingsworth v. Heavy Transp. CA2/4 (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).
“” (Lab. Code, § 6400, subd. (b).) Plaintiffs’ instruction did not contain these other specifications set forth in the statute.”
Litvinova (N.D. Cal. 2025).
“Separately, Kaiser also moves to dismiss this claim as preempted by the LMRA if the 27 claim is brought under California Labor Code § 6400. Motion at 14.”
Marion Martinez v. West Hills Hosp., et al. (C.D. Cal. 2025).
“4 13 According to Defendants, Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendants’ MSJ revealed 14 for the first time that his third cause of action—unlawful retaliation in violation of 15 § 6311—was based on his refusal to perform work that would have violated California 16 Labor Code § 6400…”
Torres v. Securitas Sec. Servs. USA Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2023).
· cites it 2× “Labor Code § 6400 (a)). He argues that he 11 notified Amazon of breaches of security protocols and Covid-19 screening protocols, which could 12 implicate a reasonable belief that the law requiring a safe and healthful workplace were being 13 violated.”
— Cal. Labor Code § 6400(a) — 1 case
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.